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 36(1)(va) of the Act. The disallowances made in respective assessment years are to the tune of Rs.10,97,693/- and Rs.33,54

AKBAR MOHAMMAD,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), JODHPUR

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

54,500/-. This return of income was processed by CPC, Banglore and the income was assessed at Rs. 8,63,200/- by making an adjustment in respect of EPF/ESIC due, which were paid beyond the due date but before the filing of the return of income. The assessee filed rectification application u/s 154 of the Act against the intimation

AKBAR MOHAMMAD,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), JODHPUR

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

54,500/-. This return of income was processed by CPC, Banglore and the income was assessed at Rs. 8,63,200/- by making an adjustment in respect of EPF/ESIC due, which were paid beyond the due date but before the filing of the return of income. The assessee filed rectification application u/s 154 of the Act against the intimation

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

DINESH BOHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO,W-1, BARMER, BARMER, RAJASTHAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Bledinesh Bohra Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Unit 517, Option Primo, Andheri Tax-1, Jodhpur. East, Mumbai-400093 Pan No. Aanpb4468Q Assessee By Shri Gautam Chand Baid, C.A. & Shri Mayank Taparia, Advocate. Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar (Cit- D.R.) Date Of Hearing 20.02.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2025.

disallowance of agriculture income in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on 20-04-2021. 8. From the record, it is evident that the assessee has challenged this assessment on legal grounds as well as on merits before first appellate authority which is stated to be pending on the date of proposed revision. Meanwhile, the Id. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 54 and 54F are benevolent provisions and should be liberally interpreted in favour of the exemption/deduction to the tax payer and the deductions should not be denied on hyper technical grounds in view Of the decision in Late Mir Gulam Ali Khan vs. CIT reported at (1987) 165 ITR 228(AP). If examined in view of the aforesaid facts

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 54 and 54F are benevolent provisions and should be liberally interpreted in favour of the exemption/deduction to the tax payer and the deductions should not be denied on hyper technical grounds in view Of the decision in Late Mir Gulam Ali Khan vs. CIT reported at (1987) 165 ITR 228(AP). If examined in view of the aforesaid facts

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

disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80 IB (11A) for income earned under handling and transportation amounting to Rs. 13,43,806/- is unwarranted and unsustainable due to the following reasons:- i. In this connection we would like to state that literal interpretation of words "integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food grains" will not lead

SH. HANUMAN PRASAD GOYAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, SURATGARH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavhanuman Prasad Goyal, Vs. I.T.O. Prop.-Goyal Enterprises, Ward-Suratgarh. Dhan Mandi, Gharsana. Pan No. Abvpg 7484 Q Assessee By Shri Virendra Jain, Adv. Revenue By Miss. Kajal Singh, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Bikaner Dated 30/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2013-14, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By A.O. On Account Of Interest Paid To Creditors Rs. 8,89,780/-. It Was Having No Force Or Solid Base Hence It Should Be Deleted. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Ao Has Erred In Charging Interest U/S 234B & 234C Of The It Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Additional Or Alternative Grounds At Or Before Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

54,390 1. Trading Addition 49,47,823 8,89,780 2. Interest Disallowed 62,996 3. Disallowed Expenses 21,913 4. Undeclared Interest 5. Addition on A/C of House Hold 1,05,979 60,28,491 Expenses TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME 63,83,081 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case the document contains figures for A. Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2011-12, A. Y. 2010-11 & 2009-10. The figures mentioned are on single paper which also exactly tallied for A. Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 this itself shows that the figure for the subsequent year

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case the document contains figures for A. Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2011-12, A. Y. 2010-11 & 2009-10. The figures mentioned are on single paper which also exactly tallied for A. Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 this itself shows that the figure for the subsequent year

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case the document contains figures for A. Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2011-12, A. Y. 2010-11 & 2009-10. The figures mentioned are on single paper which also exactly tallied for A. Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 this itself shows that the figure for the subsequent year

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case the document contains figures for A. Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2011-12, A. Y. 2010-11 & 2009-10. The figures mentioned are on single paper which also exactly tallied for A. Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 this itself shows that the figure for the subsequent year

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case the document contains figures for A. Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2011-12, A. Y. 2010-11 & 2009-10. The figures mentioned are on single paper which also exactly tallied for A. Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 this itself shows that the figure for the subsequent year

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case the document contains figures for A. Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2011-12, A. Y. 2010-11 & 2009-10. The figures mentioned are on single paper which also exactly tallied for A. Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 this itself shows that the figure for the subsequent year

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case the document contains figures for A. Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2011-12, A. Y. 2010-11 & 2009-10. The figures mentioned are on single paper which also exactly tallied for A. Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 this itself shows that the figure for the subsequent year

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case the document contains figures for A. Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2011-12, A. Y. 2010-11 & 2009-10. The figures mentioned are on single paper which also exactly tallied for A. Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 this itself shows that the figure for the subsequent year

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

54,824/-. As argued by the ld.AR of the assessee that in this case the document contains figures for A. Y. 2012-13, A.Y. 2011-12, A. Y. 2010-11 & 2009-10. The figures mentioned are on single paper which also exactly tallied for A. Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 this itself shows that the figure for the subsequent year