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

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

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

5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April

NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) of the Explanation (2) of section 263 of the Act. 8 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd 5. Aggrieved from the order of the PCIT, assessee preferred an appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as reiterated here in above in para 2. A propose to the grounds so raised the assessee has filed a paper book containing

UMED HOSPITAL MEDICARE RELIEF SOCIETY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC /ITO, EXEMPTION WARDM,, BANGALORE. JODHPUR

B, section 80-IC. section 80- ID section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E. [section 115JB or section 115VW] for to give a notice under Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 11] of the Act, he shall furnish the same electronically.]" 5.3 On perusal of the provision of section 12A read with rule 12(2), it is clear that

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, the AO assessed income of the assessee at Rs.NIL. Therefore, it is not the case that the issue related to section 2(15) of the Act, was not under consideration before the Assessing Authority. In our considered view, any issue which was considered by the AO in the assessment order, such order would be open for revision

PATEL MINERALS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Disallowance on account non 7,58,076/- commencement of business activity treating the same as capital expenditure 3 Addition u/s 56(2)(viib) entire share 51,00,000/- capital and Share Premium Amount Total Addition 58,58,076/- Total Income 51,00,000/- 5. Being aggrieved, appellant filed first appeal before CIT A-1, Udaipur (Raj) which was later

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

b) to explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act and thus, it is nothing but a change of opinion In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the order of the PCIT is not in accordance with the provisions of section 263 of the Act and thus the same is quashed so far as on the issue

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)

b) of the Act inasmuch as the application contemplated thereunder is only additional remedy for the assessee which could not be said to be compulsorily resorted to by the assessee. The circular No.7/18 dated 20.12.2018 issued under Section 119 of the Act could not be, therefore said to have taken away the appellate remedy. 5.7 The tribunal misdirected itself

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHILWARA, SHASTRI NAGAR, BHILWARA vs. BHILWARA ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANG LIMITED, AJMER ROAD, BHILWARA

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowing exemption claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 8. In the latest judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer”, [2023] 154 taxmann.com 305 (SC) has observed as under: “15.13. Further, under the provisions of the State Act, 1984, 'agricultural and rural development bank

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance by following the decision of the co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year and as the Revenue has not been able to show any distinguishable facts, we are of the view that the finding of the learned CIT (A) is on right footing and does not call for any interference

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance by following the decision of the co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year and as the Revenue has not been able to show any distinguishable facts, we are of the view that the finding of the learned CIT (A) is on right footing and does not call for any interference

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance by following the decision of the co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year and as the Revenue has not been able to show any distinguishable facts, we are of the view that the finding of the learned CIT (A) is on right footing and does not call for any interference

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance by following the decision of the co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the immediately preceding year and as the Revenue has not been able to show any distinguishable facts, we are of the view that the finding of the learned CIT (A) is on right footing and does not call for any interference

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

2), (3), (4), (4a), (5). I am of the considered view that if the return is filed within the specified time limit of sub section of 139 would be eligible for the benefit given by the above mentioned CBDT circular and should avail the benefit of exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. In my considered opinion the CIT(A) erred

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 119(2)(b) General Of Income Tax should be construed liberally, particularly in matters of (Bombay High Court) entertaining application seeking condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 119(2)(b) General Of Income Tax should be construed liberally, particularly in matters of (Bombay High Court) entertaining application seeking condonation of delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other

M/S. BHARAT CERA GLASS LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, BHILWARA

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Bharat Cera Glass Limited, Income Tax Officer, 1-B-24, Shashtri Nagar, Vs Ward-3, Bhilwara Bhilwara Pan: Aaecb4366K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “Under the facts of the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the following issues / additions. (A) Restricting disallowing a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for administrative nature. (B) Disallowances / Addition

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

2)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) passed a speaking order and upheld the assessment order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. I.T.A. Nos. 329 to 330/Jodh/2023 4 Assessment Year: 2014-15 to 2015-16 5. The ld. AR submitted the written submissions which are kept

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

2)(b) of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) passed a speaking order and upheld the assessment order. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. I.T.A. Nos. 329 to 330/Jodh/2023 4 Assessment Year: 2014-15 to 2015-16 5. The ld. AR submitted the written submissions which are kept