M/S. NOKHA AGRO SERVICES,,BIKANER vs. PR. CIT, , BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Nokha Agro Services, 18 Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Km Stone, Nh-15, Tax, Sriganganagar Road, Bikaner. Bikaner. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffn 8164 R

disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80 IB (11A) for income earned under handling and transportation amounting to Rs. 13,43,806/- is unwarranted and unsustainable due to the following reasons:- i. In this connection we would like to state that literal interpretation of words "integrated business of handling, storage and transportation of food grains" will not lead

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

DCIT,CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. M/S. KANDA EDIBLE OIL P. LTD. , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwald.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Circle, E 173, Udyog Vihar Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aacck 7754 Q

section 36(1)(iii) is not as per law for which reliance is placed on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas And Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) (ii) B and A Plantations and Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 242 ITR 22 (Gauhati) (HC) 8. We have heard the Ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused

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

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

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