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

disallowance does not come into play when the payment is made well before the date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1). Viewed thus also, the impugned adjustment is vitiated in law, and we must delete the same for this short reason as well. 10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered

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

disallowance does not come into play when the payment is made well before the date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1). Viewed thus also, the impugned adjustment is vitiated in law, and we must delete the same for this short reason as well. 10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered

MURLIDHAR KRIPLANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

section 148 is bad in law having regard to the facts of the case, written submission and position of law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) legally erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,50,000/- by disallowing

RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 153A read with\nsection 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 28.12.2017 by making total addition of Rs.\n2,33,25,782/- to the returned income of Rs. 7,50,190/-. While completing the\nassessment, the AO made a protective addition of Rs. 1,84,76,000/- in the hands of\nthe assessee. Besides, the AO also made

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of Rs. 3,16,663/- out of interest expenses claimed from the rental income. 4. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing.” 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that return declaring total income of Rs. 3,06,637/- was e-filed

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowance of Rs. 3,16,663/- out of interest expenses claimed from the rental income. 4. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative grounds at or before the time of hearing.” 4. The fact as culled out from the records is that return declaring total income of Rs. 3,06,637/- was e-filed

VIJAY RATAN SONI,DIDWANA, NAGAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAGAUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowance of Rs.1,50,583/- out of ornament making charges, and  the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- as unexplained cash under section 69A of the  Act. 3

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

50 ITR(T) 554 (Pune - Trib.) In this case, Hon'ble ITAT has held that as per the provisions of 14A of the Act expenditure incurred for earning tax-fee income should be disallowed while computing the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, in the case of partner of a partnership firm, as the share of profits is exempt from

PARSSA RAM,MERTA vs. ITO, WARD-3,, NAGAUR

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

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

50,890/-. The case was selected through Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS) for Limited Scrutiny assessment. Accordingly, a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 19.09.2016, which was duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1), along with a questionnaire was issued on 13.04.2017, fixing the date

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 50,00,00,000/- being Floating Provision Towards Advances allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK, , JODHPUR

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 50,00,00,000/- being Floating Provision Towards Advances allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 50,00,00,000/- being Floating Provision Towards Advances allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 50,00,00,000/- being Floating Provision Towards Advances allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 50,00,00,000/- being Floating Provision Towards Advances allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 50,00,00,000/- being Floating Provision Towards Advances allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

3) of the Act. While holding so ld. AO also noted that in the immediately preceding i.e. A. Y. 2016-17 assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and on account of 52 Varaha Infra Ltd. assessee's failure to prove the authenticity of books of account, book results were rejected u/s 145(3) and NP rate of 7.23% was applied

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowance of any addition is uncalled for. There is no case of suppression of receipts by showing lesser receipts. Further if the receipts are shown net of discount the same cannot be said to be not verifiable as the same is directly linked to the corresponding receipts. The addition being made only on the basis of suspicion, therefore, we direct

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowance of any addition is uncalled for. There is no case of suppression of receipts by showing lesser receipts. Further if the receipts are shown net of discount the same cannot be said to be not verifiable as the same is directly linked to the corresponding receipts. The addition being made only on the basis of suspicion, therefore, we direct