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

6. Liberty is granted to the ld AR to make all submissions in respect of allowability of disallowed contribution of the employees to PF and ESI under other relevant provisions in the interest of justice. This direction is being given because ld AR has submitted that as the amount is not allowable under section

M/S. SHREE TIRUPATI ASSOCIATES,BHILWARA vs. ITO, BHILWARA

6. As per a new sub sec 3A in sec 40A inserted from A.Y. 2009-10 no disallowances even if payment made in cash exceeds Rs. 20000/- having regards to the nature, considerations of business expediency and other relevant factors as submitted above. 7. The condition laid down in rule 6DD (j) read with provisions of section

SHRI SIDDHESH KUMAR GAUR ,JODHPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, ACIT, CIRCLE-3, BENGALURU / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

disallowance under section 40A(3) in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The appellant craves leave to add/alter

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 10(1) of 1922 Act – Expenditure by way of salary and bonus to staff, maintenance of car and travelling expenses for the purpose of earning such income, therefore allowable as business expenditure.” b. RAM MURTI SOOD vs. ITO (1982) 14 TTJ (CHD) 352 Business Expenditure—Allowability of deduction—Personal car used by assessee partner for business of firm—Assessee

THE LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELSPRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PCIT,CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, the provisions of section are clear that deduction under this section is restricted to the amount of employee's contribution which had been credited to the employees account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the "due date" In explanation to section

APNA GHAR ASHRAM,JODHPUR vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE / JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

disallowance made by CPC under section 143(1) is not sustainable. 5.2 Therefore, we hold that the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act. The appeal is allowed and the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the relief accordingly. 6

NAGAUR URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, NAGAUR

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

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blenagaur Urban Coop Bank Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1 Limited Nagaur - 341001 Head Office Bal Samand, Nagaur - 341001 Pan No. Aaaan 7788 B Assessee By None (Adjournment Application) Shri K.C. Meena, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 12.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 28.01.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Nfac/Cit Appeal”] Dated 27.09.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2022-23 Challenging Therein Disallowance Of Rs. 6,51,147/- By Cpc Invoking Provisions Of Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act.

disallowance of Rs. 6,51,147/- by CPC invoking provisions of Section 154 of the Income Tax Act. 2. None

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

6,45,300/- were disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during

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

6,45,300/- were disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

6,45,300/- were disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during

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

6,45,300/- were disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

6,45,300/- were disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during

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

6,45,300/- were disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

6,45,300/- were disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

6,45,300/- were disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

6,45,300/- were disallowed as per provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and 40A(3) of IT Act, 1961 during

SHREE TARAK GURU JAIN GRANTHALYA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU / ITO (EXEMPTION), UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

6. The Ld. AR accordingly submitted that Section 13(9) and Section 12A(1)(ba) is covering both the returns filed in which application of return is claimed. He further contended that before making such adjustments u/s 143(1)(a), no intimations have been issued to the assessee which was mandatory requirement of the law. In support he placed reliance

SHREE TARAK GURU JAIN GRANTHALYA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU / ITO (EXEMPTION), UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

6. The Ld. AR accordingly submitted that Section 13(9) and Section 12A(1)(ba) is covering both the returns filed in which application of return is claimed. He further contended that before making such adjustments u/s 143(1)(a), no intimations have been issued to the assessee which was mandatory requirement of the law. In support he placed reliance