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 143(1) / 154 and on facts also the same is outside the scope of such adjustment. 1.2. It is well settled that no addition can be made in a order u/s 143(1) / 154 where detailed reasoning is required for making any addition. The disallowance of depreciation is not a apparent mistake of law or fact which could

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

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

57,83,448/-made on account of disallowance of deduction\nclaimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by holding that\nthe assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming deduction u/s\n35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed to comply with\nstatutory requirement of provision of 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

57,83,448/-made on account of disallowance of deduction\nclaimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by holding that\nthe assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming deduction u/s\n35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed to comply with\nstatutory requirement of provision of section

NAVAL KISHORE DAGA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

57 of the Act. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed the claim of deduction of interest expenditure as such the same is allowable in accordance with provisions of law. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A), NFAC

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

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

57 TTJ (Mum) (SMC) 77, Mumbai Bench of Tribunal that where the trust filed the audit report along with a rectification application under section 154, it was entitled to the exemption, as the defect had been removed. CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the Industries [1993] 201 ITR 325 provision about furnishing

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

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

57 TTJ (Mum) (SMC) 77, Mumbai Bench of Tribunal that where the trust filed the audit report along with a rectification application under section 154, it was entitled to the exemption, as the defect had been removed. CIT v. Gujarat Oil & Allied The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the Industries [1993] 201 ITR 325 provision about furnishing

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

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

57,83,448/-made on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by holding that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming deduction u/s 35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed to comply with statutory requirement of provision of section

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

57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings recorded in the orders

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

57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings recorded in the orders

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings recorded in the orders

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings recorded in the orders

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings recorded in the orders

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings recorded in the orders

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings recorded in the orders

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings recorded in the orders

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

57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings recorded in the orders

SHREE RAM COLLOIDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(1), JODHPUR

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

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeshree Ram Colloids Private Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax (1), Jodhpur C-79, Mia, Phase-Ii, Jodhpur- 342 005 Pan: Aakcs5803L Appellant Respondent

section 57. 9 ITA 344/JODH/2024 Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited 5.4. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the Assessing Officer has not looked into the nature of assets from which rent income has been earned and whether it has been shown in correct head and whether depreciation has been claimed correctly. The issue requires further

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

57,517/— which is claimed as exempted income. However no disallowance of expenses has been made by the AO u/s 14 A read with Rule 8 D. 3. The above income has not been dealt in assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 15.12.2009 as well as u/s 143(3) read with under section