SANTOK SNGH GEHLOT,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), JODHPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

57-Jodh-2021- Arpit Gulecha, Jodhpur 31.07.2021 2 ITA No. 58-Jodh-2021-Shashi Maheshwari, Jodhpur 09.06.2021 3 ITA No. 73-Jodh-2021- Opel Sulz Private Limited, 13.09.2021 Bhilwara 4 ITA No. 74-Jodh-2021 - Opel Sulz Private Limited, 14.09.2021 Bhilwara 5 ITA No. 75-Jodh-2021 - Kishori Lal Singhvi, Balotra 01.09.2021 6 ITA No. 76-Jodh-2021 - Shubh Laxmi

WHEEL O CITY,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRI GANGANAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

57-Jodh-2021- Arpit Gulecha, Jodhpur 31.07.2021 2 ITA No. 58-Jodh-2021-Shashi Maheshwari, Jodhpur 09.06.2021 3 ITA No. 73-Jodh-2021- Opel Sulz Private Limited, 13.09.2021 Bhilwara 4 ITA No. 74-Jodh-2021 - Opel Sulz Private Limited, 14.09.2021 Bhilwara 5 ITA No. 75-Jodh-2021 - Kishori Lal Singhvi, Balotra 01.09.2021 6 ITA No. 76-Jodh-2021 - Shubh Laxmi

WHEEL O CITY,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRI GANGANAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

57-Jodh-2021- Arpit Gulecha, Jodhpur 31.07.2021 2 ITA No. 58-Jodh-2021-Shashi Maheshwari, Jodhpur 09.06.2021 3 ITA No. 73-Jodh-2021- Opel Sulz Private Limited, 13.09.2021 Bhilwara 4 ITA No. 74-Jodh-2021 - Opel Sulz Private Limited, 14.09.2021 Bhilwara 5 ITA No. 75-Jodh-2021 - Kishori Lal Singhvi, Balotra 01.09.2021 6 ITA No. 76-Jodh-2021 - Shubh Laxmi

ARPIT GULECHA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

57-Jodh-2021- Arpit Gulecha, Jodhpur 31.07.2021 2 ITA No. 58-Jodh-2021-Shashi Maheshwari, Jodhpur 09.06.2021 3 ITA No. 73-Jodh-2021- Opel Sulz Private Limited, 13.09.2021 Bhilwara 4 ITA No. 74-Jodh-2021 - Opel Sulz Private Limited, 14.09.2021 Bhilwara 5 ITA No. 75-Jodh-2021 - Kishori Lal Singhvi, Balotra 01.09.2021 6 ITA No. 76-Jodh-2021 - Shubh Laxmi

OPEL SULZ PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWRA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

57-Jodh-2021- Arpit Gulecha, Jodhpur 31.07.2021 2 ITA No. 58-Jodh-2021-Shashi Maheshwari, Jodhpur 09.06.2021 3 ITA No. 73-Jodh-2021- Opel Sulz Private Limited, 13.09.2021 Bhilwara 4 ITA No. 74-Jodh-2021 - Opel Sulz Private Limited, 14.09.2021 Bhilwara 5 ITA No. 75-Jodh-2021 - Kishori Lal Singhvi, Balotra 01.09.2021 6 ITA No. 76-Jodh-2021 - Shubh Laxmi

SHASHI MAHESHWARI,JODHPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year : 2018-19 Arpit Gulecha, Vs. The Dcit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Ahdpg9415D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shashi Maheshwari, Vs. The Adit, Jodhpur Cpc, Bengaluru Pan No: Aaspm0358H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2018-19 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Dcit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Opel Sulz Private Limited, Vs. The Adit, Bhilwara Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Aaaco2585R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year : 2019-20 Kishori Lal Singhvi Vs. The Dcit, Balotra Cpc, Banglore Pan No: Abnps1994F Appellant Respondent

57-Jodh-2021- Arpit Gulecha, Jodhpur 31.07.2021 2 ITA No. 58-Jodh-2021-Shashi Maheshwari, Jodhpur 09.06.2021 3 ITA No. 73-Jodh-2021- Opel Sulz Private Limited, 13.09.2021 Bhilwara 4 ITA No. 74-Jodh-2021 - Opel Sulz Private Limited, 14.09.2021 Bhilwara 5 ITA No. 75-Jodh-2021 - Kishori Lal Singhvi, Balotra 01.09.2021 6 ITA No. 76-Jodh-2021 - Shubh Laxmi

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

57,53,331/- made on account of provision for bad and doubtful debts. 2. Whether on the facts and in the present circumstances of the case and in law the ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs.3,86,244/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of rent payment.’’ 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the Revenue

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

SHRI GAUTAM SHARMA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramesh C.Sharmavk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 120/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke Shri Gautam Sharma The Dcit Vs. 221-222, Shyam Nagar, Scheme, Pali Central Circle Link Road, Jodhpur Jodhpur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Awdps 1276 K Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@Revenue By: Shri Abhimanyu Yadav, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/06/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 04/09/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Ramesh C. Sharma, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Dated 12-02-2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 147/ R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.1 Due To Prevailing Covid-19 Pandemic Condition, The Hearing Of The Appeal Is Concluded Through Video Conference. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To Disallowance Of Rs.40.57 Lacs Paid Towards Purchase Of Land, By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act.

Section 40A(3) applicable to expenditure for stock in trade and raw materials and the word ‘expenditure’ included all outgoings including expenditure for purchasing stock in trade and raw material. With these observations, the AO made a disallowance of Rs.40,57

SHRI RAMESHWAR LAL SAMDANI,BHILWARA vs. ITO, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalshri Rameshwar Lal Samdani, Vs. I.T.O., D-43, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara Ward-3, (Raj)-311001. Bhilwara. Pan No. Adqps 6311 K Assessee By Shri Ajay Moondra Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2021

57(iii) if admissible only in respect of expenditure expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the income referred in section 56. As the appellant has failed to show with the help of any documentary evidence that the interest of Rs. 8,91,535/- was expended by him wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the interest

ITO, WARD-1(3), JODHPUR vs. M/S. MANGALDEEP DARSHAN, JODHPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.78/Jodh/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Chand Agarwal Dcit Nagaur Circle C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate Nagaur, Rajasthan बनाम/ 106, Akshay Deep Complex Vs. 5Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Rajasthan-342 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpa-4401-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 4. Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee, inter-alia, submitted that considering cash basis of accounting, the amount of interest expenditure was claimed in the year of payment and in the same way, income would be shown as and when it would be realized. It was pointed out that

SUBHASH CHAND AGARWAL,MAKRANA vs. DCIT, NAGAUR CIRCLE, NAGAUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.78/Jodh/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Subhash Chand Agarwal Dcit Nagaur Circle C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate Nagaur, Rajasthan बनाम/ 106, Akshay Deep Complex Vs. 5Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Rajasthan-342 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Addpa-4401-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 4. Before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee, inter-alia, submitted that considering cash basis of accounting, the amount of interest expenditure was claimed in the year of payment and in the same way, income would be shown as and when it would be realized. It was pointed out that

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

ASSTT. 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

ASSTT. 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