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

53. The distinction between an employer’s contribution which is its primary liability under law – in terms of Section 36(1)(iv), and its liability to deposit amounts received by it or deducted by it (Section 36(1)(va)) is, thus crucial. The former forms part of the employers’ income, and the later retains its character as an income (albeit

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, legal position and judicial precedents cited supra, it is held that the addition of Rs. 25,91,01,791%- could not have been made either u/s. 68 or u/s. 41(1) of the Act and hence, the addition made

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of expenditure under Section14AtobeRs. 183.63/acs. 1. It is accepted and admitted that the Assessing Officer had not applied Section 14A and no deduction under the said Section was made. In respect of the present assessment year, i.e., Assessment Year 2000-01, the contention of the respondent- assessee is that in view of the proviso to 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

1) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to this finding. 16 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. In view of discussion above, it is clear that the banks are required to make certain provisions under the guidelines of the RBI, but the allowably of such provisions

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

1) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to this finding. 16 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. In view of discussion above, it is clear that the banks are required to make certain provisions under the guidelines of the RBI, but the allowably of such provisions

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

1) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to this finding. 16 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. In view of discussion above, it is clear that the banks are required to make certain provisions under the guidelines of the RBI, but the allowably of such provisions

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

1) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to this finding. 16 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. In view of discussion above, it is clear that the banks are required to make certain provisions under the guidelines of the RBI, but the allowably of such provisions

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

1) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to this finding. 16 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. In view of discussion above, it is clear that the banks are required to make certain provisions under the guidelines of the RBI, but the allowably of such provisions

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

1) of the Act. Accordingly, he directed the Assessing Officer to give effect to this finding. 16 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. In view of discussion above, it is clear that the banks are required to make certain provisions under the guidelines of the RBI, but the allowably of such provisions

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

53] ii. It is submitted that the assumptions of the Ld. CIT(A) are factually incorrect, as the appellant trust had duly filed the audit report in Form 10B electronically along return of income. [PB Page No. 36] iii. Further also, Ld. CIT(A) had formed the basis of impugned disallowance under the presumption that the assessment year

ACIT, CHITTORGARH vs. M/S.THE BANSWARA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

1)(viia) at Rs.41,30,176/-. Thus the AO made disallowance of Rs.2,57,53,331/-. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance of Rs.2,57,53,331/- made by the AO taking into consideration the provision of Rule 6ABA and the decision of ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Hyderabad vs Nizam District Cooperative Central

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

disallowance made in order u/s 143(1), by the ld. AO is bad in law and bad on facts, and such adjustment made was not justified u/s 143(1), as was not an apparent addition. b. The addition was not an apparent mistake of fact or law and even after the order of the ld. AO has directed to collect

HARMONY PLASTICS PVT.LTD., ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad180/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) M/S. Harmony Plastics Pvt Ltd. V The Acit S F-335-339, Bhamashah Industrial Circle-1 Area, Kaladwas, Udaipur Uddaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch 5399 D

disallowance of allowance of balance 50% additional depreciation on new plant & Machinery purchased and put to use during the IInd Half of A.Y. 2014-15 on the alleged ground that in terms of clause (iia) of Section 32(1), addl. Depreciation is available in year in which machinery is new and first put to use and not for any succeeding

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs. VIKRAM ANJANA, CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosaindy. Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Vikram Anjana Income-Tax, Kesunda, Chhoti Central Circle-01, Udaipur Sadri, Chittorgarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afkpa 0575 R

53,117/- @12% Services 4 M/s U. B. Roadlines 17,16,154/- @12% 5. The AO noticed that the assessee has paid interest @ 10% to many unrelated parties. Accordingly he took the view that the rate of interest paid in excess of 10% to related parties would be liable for disallowance u/s 40A(2)(a) of the Act. Accordingly

M/S. NOKHA AGRO SERVICES,,BIKANER vs. PR. CIT, , BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Nokha Agro Services, 18 Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Km Stone, Nh-15, Tax, Sriganganagar Road, Bikaner. Bikaner. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffn 8164 R

disallowed? In due course of the assessment proceedings at various stages the assessee’s A/R vide his detailed reply quoting various judicial pronouncements. The relevant portions of the submission of the A/R in regard to all the above three points are re- produced hereunder in order to testify his submission critically: 1&2 In the matter of three separate audits

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

1, 6 & 7 are general in nature and hence, not adjudicated. 8. Ground no.2 to 4 are relating to treating the income from capital gains offered as income from business and disallowing the deductions/exemptions claimed u/s.54F/54EC of the Act. one of these grounds is also in respect of disallowance of part of the expenditure on construction for non production

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, by the DCIT, Circle-01, Jodhpur. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding validity of order passed by the Id AO. 2. That on the facts

M/S. SUNIL & COMPANY,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

section 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, Circle-01, Jodhpur[ here in after reffered to as “ld. AO”]. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of interest

SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA,BARMER vs. ITO,WARD-1, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

1) of the Act, added the same to the income of the assesse in view of the provisions of section 43B of the Act. It is an established position that disallowance u/s.43B can be made of an amount which has been claimed as deduction by the assesse. In other words, when deduction has not been claimed, question of making disallowance