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

disallowance does not come into play when the payment is made well before the date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1). Viewed thus also, the impugned adjustment is vitiated in law, and we must delete the same for this short reason as well. 10. In view of the detailed discussions above, we are of the considered

PRIME SUITINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-4, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S Prime Suitings Pvt. Ltd., D- Income Tax Officer, 5-6, Bhilwara Textile Market, Vs Ward-4, Bhilwara Pur Road, Bhilwara Pan: Aaacp8447P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ajmer Dated 06Th June, 2018 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Passed By Ito, Ward-4, Bhilwara On 30.11.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

63,315/- by invoking the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule SD of the Income Tax Act 1961 without appreciating the fact that the assessee company has not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration and has not brought out any evidences on record which substantiates that it has incurred any expenditure for earning any exempt income

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

disallowing the amount of Rs. 68,62,780, i.e. the income which has escaped assessment as per the reasons recorded. Neither the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment nor any other material on record demonstrate that the issue relating to the claim of deduction under s.801A of the Act was ever a subject matter of dispute in the re-assessment

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized document the year wise gross receipts are noted

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized document the year wise gross receipts are noted

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

63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized document the year wise gross receipts are noted

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

63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized document the year wise gross receipts are noted

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

63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized document the year wise gross receipts are noted

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized document the year wise gross receipts are noted

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized document the year wise gross receipts are noted

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized document the year wise gross receipts are noted

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized document the year wise gross receipts are noted

M/S. BHARAT CERA GLASS LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, BHILWARA

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Bharat Cera Glass Limited, Income Tax Officer, 1-B-24, Shashtri Nagar, Vs Ward-3, Bhilwara Bhilwara Pan: Aaecb4366K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “Under the facts of the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the following issues / additions. (A) Restricting disallowing a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for administrative nature. (B) Disallowances / Addition

SHRI SHESHAVTAR 1008 SHRI KALLAJI VEDPITH EVAM SHODH SANSTHAN,NIMBAHERA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowing the legal and legitimate claim of the appellant solely on the ground that the claim was made during the assessment proceedings i.e. Acquisition of Fixed Assets, Purchase of Books and Periodicals and Payment of endowment fund to university of. This approach is arbitrary, unjustified, and against the principles of natural justice. The circular specifically emphasizes the duty

DHANPAT RAJ KHATRI - HUF,JAISALMER vs. ITO,, JAISALMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Dhanpat Raj Khatri Vs The Ito Khatri Pada, Jaisalmer Jaisalmer

Section 68 is discretionary and discretion must be used as per law and decided judgements and not according to the presumption. Since the assessee has submitted the entire details, books of accounts etc. and the AO did not reject the books of account of the assessee, hence the addition so made on presumption basis does not support in view

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

sections is mandatory but consequential to Income. The A O is directed to allow consequential relief to the assessee while giving effect to this appeal order. 9 The fifth ground of appeal is as under "The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings uis 274 and 271(1)(C) 9.1 The initiation of penalty is not appealable. The ground

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

63,00,741+9,94,269+47,56,615+68,12,269+13,06,74,650) made on account of difference in contract receipt shown in Form 26AS vis-à-vis receipts accounted by the assessee. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining disallowance

DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT,UDAIPUR vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

63 ITR (Trib) 0484 (Delhi) Reassessment—Income escaping assessment—Validity thereof—Case of assessee was selected for scrutiny as per provisions of section 147 and 151 and accordingly notice u/s 148 was issued to assessee— Proceedings u/s 147/148 were initiated after recording reasons on basis of information received from Investigation Wing of Department on basis of search and seizure operation

MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, both on legal issue\nas well as on facts

disallowance\nunder Chapter-VI-A by taking view that no such deduction claimed in original return of income\nand no evidence to substantiate such deductions were filed—CIT(A) observed that pattern of\nwithdrawal support contention of assessee is that deposit in bank were pertaining to business of\nits scrap-Accordingly, accepted transaction—CIT(A) on basis of pattern