MEGA TEX PRINTS,PALI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ITO, WARD-1, PALI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. “ 11. A similar view has been taken by this Bench of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 65

MONA MARBLES PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. “ 11. A similar view has been taken by this Bench of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 65

MONA MARBLES PVT. LD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. “ 11. A similar view has been taken by this Bench of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 65

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

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. “ 6.5 A similar view has been taken by this Bench of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 65

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

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decisions of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. “ 6.5 A similar view has been taken by this Bench of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 65

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263 of the I T Act cannot be invoked. Your honour’s observation to the effect that the learned A.O. has not carried out a detailed enquiry and has merely accepted the assessee’s explanation without applying his mind and the order is erroneous in nature, it is submitted, is un- charitable. It needs to be appreciated that

SMT. LEELA DEVI SANKHLECHA,JODHPUR vs. ITO,WARD-3(4), JODHPUR

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmismt. Leela Devi Sankhlecha Vs The Ito C-133, Kamla Nehru Nagar Ward 3(4) X-1, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aobps 7384 G

65,880/- deserved to be struck down. The appellant had also questioned the manner of disallowance worked out by the AO before the CIT(A). After due consideration of these arguments, the CIT(A) directed the AO to re-work out the amount to be disallowed. The CIT(A)'s direction cannot be taken in isolation where the amount

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)

disallowing the claim of exemption under section 11 and making an addition of Rs. 2 1,60,22,225/-, thereby raising a demand of Rs. 65

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR vs. VIKRAM ANJANA, CHITTORGARH

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosaindy. Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Vikram Anjana Income-Tax, Kesunda, Chhoti Central Circle-01, Udaipur Sadri, Chittorgarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afkpa 0575 R

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 4. Facts of this issue have been narrated in detail in the above para. Before us both the parties, have reiterated their earlier arguments. We have found that the revenue cannot insist upon the assessee to borrow funds from particular/parties and at a fixed rate of interest. The assessee has to consider various

SHRI SEWARAM CHARITABLE TRUST ,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 12A(B) of the Act need to be complied with by the assessee trust but at the same time when audit report in form 10B has not been filed along with return of income due to some technical reasons DCIT, CPC was not empowered to make any adjustment/raise a demand without issuing a notice to the assessee. 6. Undisputedly

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act. 3. The Ld. AO has grossly erred in law & facts in charging interest u/s 234 of the Act. 4. The appellant reserves rights to add/alter/amend/withdrawn any/all grounds of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case that the assessee is engaged in the business of Hotel and Resort as proprietor

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

65 DTR 196 has held that it is the discretion of the taxing authorities as to what should be the percentage of profit that should be applied and that the discretion should be exercised on settled practice. (xii) In view of these facts, after the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145, the income of the appellant is required

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

65 DTR 196 has held that it is the discretion of the taxing authorities as to what should be the percentage of profit that should be applied and that the discretion should be exercised on settled practice. (xii) In view of these facts, after the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145, the income of the appellant is required

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

65 DTR 196 has held that it is the discretion of the taxing authorities as to what should be the percentage of profit that should be applied and that the discretion should be exercised on settled practice. (xii) In view of these facts, after the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145, the income of the appellant is required

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

65 DTR 196 has held that it is the discretion of the taxing authorities as to what should be the percentage of profit that should be applied and that the discretion should be exercised on settled practice. (xii) In view of these facts, after the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145, the income of the appellant is required

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

65 DTR 196 has held that it is the discretion of the taxing authorities as to what should be the percentage of profit that should be applied and that the discretion should be exercised on settled practice. (xii) In view of these facts, after the rejection of books of accounts u/s 145, the income of the appellant is required