M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

section 143(1)(a)(iv) provides for adjustment by way of disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not considered while computing the total income. 5

APNA GHAR ASHRAM,JODHPUR vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE / JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

disallowance made by CPC under section 143(1) is not sustainable. 5.2 Therefore, we hold that the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act. The appeal is allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the relief accordingly. 6. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court

SATYA NARAYAN DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in respect of above said three issues

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) I.T.A. No. 49/Jodh/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. Pcit-1 Satya Narayan Dhoot C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate Jodhpur 106, Akshay Deep Complex 5Th B Road, Sardarpura Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. Pan : Aanpd4945L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain Department By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain Date Of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17 .01.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

Section 80IA(5) of the Act, i.e., the losses incurred in the years prior to the initial year need not be adjusted while computing the deduction u/s 80IA in the initial year. Hence the view expressed by Ld PCIT goes against the Circular of CBDT referred above. There should not be any doubt that the circulars issued by CBDT

SHRI SIDDHESH KUMAR GAUR ,JODHPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, ACIT, CIRCLE-3, BENGALURU / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Because the learned CIT(A) erred

SUNIL KUMAR DOSHI,BARMER vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1,, BANGALORE / BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Making Assessment, Which Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of The Present Proceedings. 2. A. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 62,641/- Made By The Ld. Ao In 143(1) Order On Account Of Depreciation Claimed. B. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble

section 14A of the Act rw Rule 8D of the Rules, 1962, the expenditure attributable to share of profit, which is exempt from tax u/s. 10(2A) of the Act, shall be disallowed. 7.11 Accordingly, while giving effect to this order, the assessee is directed to furnish the details of the actual amount of income received from the partnership firm

THE LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELSPRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PCIT,CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5. I have considered the facts of the case, written submission filed by the assessee company and the material available on record. The contention of the assessee is not tenable. The Lake Palace Hotels & Motels Pvt. Ltd. As far as the issue of the disallowance to be made u/s 14A of the IT Act is concerned, the provisions of section

UTTARAKHAND VIKAS SAMITI,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleuttarakhand Vikas Samiti Vs. Dcit, Cpc/Ito, Ward Exemption, 117, Main Road, Bhupalpura, Udaipur - 313001 Udaipur - 313001 Pan No. Aaatu 3935 G Assessee By Shri Yogesh Pokharna, C.A. (Physical) Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit (A) Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Jcit Appeal”] Dated 24.01.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2018-19 Challenging Therein Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs. 6,00,000/- Without Appreciating Facts Of The Case.

disallowed the appellant’s claim for set apart of Rs. 6,00,000/- considering the fact that form 10 was filed belatedly. Asst. Year: 2017-18 3 5. The Ld. AR argued that the Commissioner of Income Tax, while interpreting such belated applications in form 9A and form no. 10 satisfied this that the assessee was apprehended by reasonable cause

SMT. LEELA DEVI SANKHLECHA,JODHPUR vs. ITO,WARD-3(4), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmismt. Leela Devi Sankhlecha Vs The Ito C-133, Kamla Nehru Nagar Ward 3(4) X-1, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aobps 7384 G

5 ITA 64/JODH/2018 SMT LEELA DEVI SANKHLECHA VS ITO, WARD 3(4), JODHPUR necessary details for working/ calculation of figures under rule 8D. With these directions, the ground nos. 1 and 2 are disposed of. The grounds are treated as allowed. 07. Vide ground no. 3, the appellant contended that the provisions of section 14A are not applicable

SHRI SHESHAVTAR 1008 SHRI KALLAJI VEDPITH EVAM SHODH SANSTHAN,NIMBAHERA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

5 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT (A) has confirmed charge of interest under section 234B and under Section 234D of the Income Tax Act 1961 amounting to Rs 11,82,918/- and Rs 4,370/- respectively which is quite arbitrary, unjustified, illegal and not based on facts. Submission 5.1 The appellant

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

5-11), held that: "Section 263, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether where an assessment has been reopened under section 147 in relation to a particular ground or in relation to certain specified grounds and subsequent to passing of order of reassessment, jurisdiction

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

5) Departmental Representative\n(6) Guard File\n-Sd/-\n(DR. MITHA LAL MEENA)\nACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nBER\nBy Oder\nAssistant Registrar,\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal,\nJodhpur Bench,\nJodhpur.", "summary": {"facts": "The appeals were filed by the revenue against the orders of the CIT(A) deleting additions made on account of disallowance of deductions claimed under Section

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

5) Departmental Representative\n(6) Guard File\nBy Oder\nAssistant Registrar,\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal,\nJodhpur Bench,\nJodhpur.", "summary": { "facts": "The revenue filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) which deleted additions made on account of disallowance of deductions under Section

M/S. SHREE TIRUPATI ASSOCIATES,BHILWARA vs. ITO, BHILWARA

section 40A(3) read with rule 6DD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 – business expenditure – disallowance – payments made otherwise than by crossed cheques or bank drafts – nature of business and evidence in form of bills and cash memos – exceptional circumstances explained by the assessee – whether cash payments to be allowed – held, yes. 5

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARMER vs. PUSHP RAJ BOHRA, JALORE

The appeal of the revenue is allowed, in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Bleito, Ward-1, Barmer. Vs. Pushp Raj Bohra, M-09, Shivaji Nagar, Jalore - 343001. Pan No. Aanpb4456C Assessee By Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.A. Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 01.03.2025. Order Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Id. National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac/Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 08.02.2024 In Respect Of Assessment Year: 2017-18 Where The Department Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Is Justified In Facts & Law In Directing To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income, By Ignoring The Fact That Assesse & His Business Concerns Are Engaged In The Business Of Property & Real Estate Development & Huge Expenses Of Rs. 8.72 Cr. Were Incurred By Assessee On Development Of Projects To Earn Profit. 2. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Directing The Ao To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Income From Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income By Merely Following The Order Of Hon'Ble

5,89,239/- per para 4.9 page 22 & 23 of the assessment order. 6. Disallowance of deduction u/s 54Fas per para page 22 1,67,83,497/- & 23 0 the assessment order Total 3,19,48,821/- 4. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the appellant filed appeal before the Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) who has granted relief to the assessee

PRIME SUITINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-4, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S Prime Suitings Pvt. Ltd., D- Income Tax Officer, 5-6, Bhilwara Textile Market, Vs Ward-4, Bhilwara Pur Road, Bhilwara Pan: Aaacp8447P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Dated 06Th June, 2018 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Passed By Ito, Ward-4, Bhilwara On 30.11.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

disallowance under section 14A cannot be made. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 33 (Del) has also held that section 14A will not apply when exempt income was not earned during the year. 5

SHRI SEWARAM CHARITABLE TRUST ,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing exemption claimed under section 11 which resulted in a demand to be payable by the taxpayer amount of Rs. 13489828. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted that appellant is registered u/s. 12A and 80G by the Commissioner as it is engaged in imparting education and running various education institutions. The appellant had not filed return

M/S. KHADI GRAMMODHYOG PRATISTHAN,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1(2), BANGALURU / BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, by the ADIT, CPC. 2 M/s Khadi Grammodhyog Prathisthan 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That the order passed by the assessing officer is illegal against the law and judicial decorum. 2. The assessing officer should have accepted the revised return submitted by the assessee which

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SURAJ FABRICS INDUSTRIES LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year: 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Of Income-Tax, Circle, Vs Ltd., 224A, Elegant Tower, Bhilwara A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata, West Bengal Pan: Aabcs8988B Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, Cit-Dr Assessee By None Date Of Hearing 11.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Department Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Dated 06.09.2017 Deleting The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act For A.Y. 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal As Under:- “1. Cancelling The Penalty Levied For Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit On A/C Of Share Capital Of 10,00,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Quantum Addition Made By The Ao Was Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A) As The Identity & M/S Suraj Fabrics Industries Ltd.

disallowance of Rs. 5,16,066/- made u/s 40A(3) is hereby cancelled. (iii) Regarding the addition of Rs. 28,950/- made under the head "long term capital gain", the appellant, relying on the decision of ITAT "E" Bench Mumbai in the case of ACIT, 14(1), Mumbai vs. M/s Sunland Metal Recycling (ITA No. 6454/Mum/2011