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

disallowance of Rs.2,57,53,331/- made by the AO. 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee was entitled to deduction of Rs.3,12,01,400/-, however, against which deduction of Rs.2,69,89,211/- was claimed. He further submitted that

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

69 of the Act. Whereas the provisions of section 68 is applicable where any credit appeared in the books of accounts which was not explained. Both are entirely different in legal meaning, The Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Kishan Kothwal Vs ITO (Telangana High Court) Appeal Number : I..T.A. No. 99 of 2021 Date of Judgement/Order

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

69 of the Act. Whereas the provisions of section 68 is applicable where any credit appeared in the books of accounts which was not explained. Both are entirely different in legal meaning, The Hon'ble Telangana High Court in the case of Kishan Kothwal Vs ITO (Telangana High Court) Appeal Number : I..T.A. No. 99 of 2021 Date of Judgement/Order

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

disallowable expenditure under s. 14A was erroneous and is prejudicial 17 | P a g e to the interest of the Revenue—Not correct—CIT has held that the enquiry conducted by the AO was inadequate and has assumed the revisional jurisdiction—Assessee has filed all the details before the AO and AO has accepted the contention of the assessee that

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

69,505/- made by Ld. AO on account of anesthesia payment to consulting doctors, therefore action of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-II, Udaipur, is erroneous & Bad in law and liable to be deleted. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(Appeals)-II Udaipur has erred in affirming the addition

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

69,505/- made by Ld. AO on account of anesthesia payment to consulting doctors, therefore action of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-II, Udaipur, is erroneous & Bad in law and liable to be deleted. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(Appeals)-II Udaipur has erred in affirming the addition

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

69,505/- made by Ld. AO on account of anesthesia payment to consulting doctors, therefore action of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-II, Udaipur, is erroneous & Bad in law and liable to be deleted. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(Appeals)-II Udaipur has erred in affirming the addition

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

69,505/- made by Ld. AO on account of anesthesia payment to consulting doctors, therefore action of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-II, Udaipur, is erroneous & Bad in law and liable to be deleted. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(Appeals)-II Udaipur has erred in affirming the addition

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

69,505/- made by Ld. AO on account of anesthesia payment to consulting doctors, therefore action of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-II, Udaipur, is erroneous & Bad in law and liable to be deleted. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(Appeals)-II Udaipur has erred in affirming the addition

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

69,505/- made by Ld. AO on account of anesthesia payment to consulting doctors, therefore action of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-II, Udaipur, is erroneous & Bad in law and liable to be deleted. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(Appeals)-II Udaipur has erred in affirming the addition

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

69,505/- made by Ld. AO on account of anesthesia payment to consulting doctors, therefore action of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-II, Udaipur, is erroneous & Bad in law and liable to be deleted. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(Appeals)-II Udaipur has erred in affirming the addition

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

69,505/- made by Ld. AO on account of anesthesia payment to consulting doctors, therefore action of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-II, Udaipur, is erroneous & Bad in law and liable to be deleted. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(Appeals)-II Udaipur has erred in affirming the addition

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

69,505/- made by Ld. AO on account of anesthesia payment to consulting doctors, therefore action of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-II, Udaipur, is erroneous & Bad in law and liable to be deleted. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(Appeals)-II Udaipur has erred in affirming the addition

DINESH KUMAR JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, BALOTRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.374/Jodh/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12

section 69 was not justified merely because suppliers could not be located and were not produced for examination." (Emphasis added) 5. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. 6. We heard the rival submission and consider the documents available in the record. The assessee has completed his onus by submitting the relevant documents

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. SUNCITY METALS AND TUBES PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, HonʼBle & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

disallowed depreciation under section 32(1) (ii) of the Income Tax Act. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, assessee went before the Ld. CIT (A)/NFAC who granted relief to the assessee by observing as under: "------------------In conclusion, the appellant asserts that the claim for depreciation on goodwill is justified, and they request that it be allowed. Further, the appellant

HITKARI AND SWARAJ ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BARMER vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

69. It is abundantly clear from the above judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court that if the Assessing Officer fails to make a disallowance as per the provisions of Section

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

69,680/-, thereby making an addition of Rs. Rs. 33,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment and disallowance of Rs. 5,65,880/- u/s. 14A of Act. In order u/s. 143(3)/250 dated 12-09-2013, the AO as per the direction of the CIT(A), reduced the amount of addition of Rs. 33,00,000/- from

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), definition of interest u/s 2(28A), decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT as to the commercial expediency and burden of proof that borrowed money has not been utilized for giving interest free advances, calculated interest @ 15% on the amount advanced (7,92,69