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

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. A/R placing reliance on the various judicial pronouncement submitted that no addition can be made either under section 41(1) or under section 68 of the Act as the AO himself did not specify the section under which he intended to make the addition. The ld. A/R further

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) of the Act dated 26.03.2019 by Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has failed to file form 10B along with return of income. No doubt in order to claim the deduction under section 11 & 12 of the Act conditions laid down in the provisions contained

SH. MAHENDRA SINGH,FLAT NO.303, ASHAPURA TOWER, PAOTA, JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaishri Mahendra Singh Vs Theacit Flat No. 303, Ashapura Tower Circle-3 Paota, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Csdps 5573B

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. I do not find any reason whatsoever in nature to interfere with the observation and findings of the Ld. Assessing Officer in regard to the disallowance of Interest expenditure u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act of Rs. 1,18,90,400/-.No interference in AO's Order is called for. The addition

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

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

HARMONY PLASTICS PVT.LTD., ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad180/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) M/S. Harmony Plastics Pvt Ltd. V The Acit S F-335-339, Bhamashah Industrial Circle-1 Area, Kaladwas, Udaipur Uddaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch 5399 D

disallowance of balance 50% additional depreciation on new Plant & Machinery purchased and installed during the IInd half of A.Y. 2014-15 and depreciation claimed @ 10% of Rs.21,81,146/-. The ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that allowance of balance 50% of the additional on new plant or machinery acquired and used for less than 180 days which

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

66,251.00 were included in Sale of Goods. 5.3 GST Expenses Rs. 1,620.00-the ineligible IGST has been reversed. The copy of Ledger account is attached. The credit of this IGST is not allowed under the GST laws, and therefore the same had been expensed out. This is not any penalty or interest but as a matter of fact

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

SHRI DEVKRIPA TEXTILE MILLS (P) LTD. ,BHILWARA vs. ACIT, BHILWARA CIRCLE, BHILWARA

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 24.12.2017. Shri Devkripa Textile Mills P. Ltd. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the disallowance made by Ld. AO for Rs. 26,66

RAMDEO PAN BHANDAR,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal filed by the asessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteram Deo Pan Bhandar Vs. Acit, Circle -1, Kem Road, Bikaner, Bikaner-334001, Rajasthan. Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aabfr3308M Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

section 115BBE on addition for cash made. 4. The appellant pray for suitable costs 5. The appellant crave liberty to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any of the ground of appeal on or before its hearing before your honour 2. The brief of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business

M/S. LILA TRADING COMPANY,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR

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 Lila Trading Company, Income Tax Officer, Shop No. 97, New Dhan Mandi Vs Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar Sri Ganganagar Pan: Aaafl5911B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.08.2023 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), Bikaner Dated 31.12.2019 Emanating From The Order Of Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For A.Y. 2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee Are As Under:- “1. In Facts & Circumstances, Ld. Cit (A) Was Not Justified In Sustaining 10% Disallowance Of Rs.53,220 Made Out Of Aggregate Claim Of Rs.5,32,209 Under Five Heads Of Expenses On The Grounds That Some Of Vouchers Were Produced & Most Of The Vouchers Being Self- Made Verification Of Possibilities Of Personal Use Or Their Correctness Could Not Be Ascertained But M/S Lila Trading Company

section 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2015-16. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee are as under:- “1. In facts and circumstances, Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in sustaining 10% disallowance of Rs.53,220 made out of aggregate claim of Rs.5,32,209 under five heads of expenses on the grounds that some of vouchers were

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

66,99,427/- but as a Capital Gain, thereby ignoring the facts that nature of business of the assessee is 'builder/property developer' as declared in column 10(a) of the 3CD form. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)was justified in allowing the deduction u/s 24(b) on rental income

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

Disallowances / Addition of Rs. 13,52,000/- (Rs. 14,63,000/- - 1,11,000/-) u/sec. 56(2)(viib). (C) Any other matter with prior approval of the Hon'ble Bench. 2. In this case on following dates, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. i. 19.01.2023 ii. 08.08.2023 2.1 The notice for scheduling the hearing for 08th August

DINESH BOHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO,W-1, BARMER, BARMER, RAJASTHAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Bledinesh Bohra Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Unit 517, Option Primo, Andheri Tax-1, Jodhpur. East, Mumbai-400093 Pan No. Aanpb4468Q Assessee By Shri Gautam Chand Baid, C.A. & Shri Mayank Taparia, Advocate. Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar (Cit- D.R.) Date Of Hearing 20.02.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2025.

1,25,68,514/- by making an addition on account of disallowance of agriculture income of Rs.58,79,649/-. 4.1 The assessment order for the year under consideration was picked up for proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act by the PCIT-1, Jodhpur and a show cause notice was issued as under:- "On perusal of the assessment record

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI vs. SHAHNAVAJ NAJIK L.H OF LATE SH. IQBAL NAJIK, PALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Acit Vs Shri Shahnavaj Najik Circle-Pali L/H Of Late Shri Iqbal Najik 173, Ashapura Nagar, Pali (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpn 5861 D

Section 40A(3) of the Act. The AO further noted that the assessee did not show the land in his personal balance sheet whose details are mentioned as under:- S.N. Particulars Amount Date of Payment Mode 1. Land at Pal – Khasra No. 31,00,000 01-08-2012 Cash 390/1, 12 Bigha land purchased fromKashiram Badri Narayan and Pukhraj

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

66,275/- Rs. 4,46,980/-” Interest from total loan 11.2 The ld. AO based on total area of building with that of area given on rent has allowed. The interest claim to the assessee contending that the balance property is not completed and therefore, proportionally, the ld. AO has disallowed the interest payment of Rs.3,16,663/-. The relevant

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

66,275/- Rs. 4,46,980/-” Interest from total loan 11.2 The ld. AO based on total area of building with that of area given on rent has allowed. The interest claim to the assessee contending that the balance property is not completed and therefore, proportionally, the ld. AO has disallowed the interest payment of Rs.3,16,663/-. The relevant

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

disallowed this claim for want of verification. A perusal\nof the record would indicate that inspite of survey carried out at\nthe premises of the assessee, the ld. AO was unable to pin-point\nas to why direct and indirect expenses are not required for\nearning a huge income of more than Rs.72 lacs which has been\noffered