NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 80IA of the Act, disallowance of Rs. 51,58,174/- u/s. 14A of the act and disallowance of Rs. 15,24,003/- in terms of 7

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by holding that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming deduction u/s 35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed to comply with statutory requirement of provision of section 35AD(7

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

section 2(24)(x) of the Act. In accordance with the statutory provision, the departmental authorities have made the disallowances. 7

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

section 2(24)(x) of the Act. In accordance with the statutory provision, the departmental authorities have made the disallowances. 7

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 14A were applicable and as per Rule 8D, the amount of disallowance comes to Rs. 7,16,95,349/-. The ld. PCIT

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)

7. They are accordingly decided. The appeal is allowed." 33. Though rendered in the context of Form 10B, in our considered opinion, the legal position as enunciated in the aforesaid judgment would equally apply to the submission of Form 10. 34. We, accordingly, allow the instant writ petition and quash the impugned order under Section 148A (d) dated 31 March

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 14A is applicable to the facts of the case. Further, it has been held in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2010] 194 Taxman 203 (Bom.) that all facts may be taken into consideration for determining the quantum of disallowance to be made. This portion of the judgment is applicable only in respect

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallow exemption under section 54F on same facts was not sustainable [In favour of assessee]. [2022] 138 taxmann.com 445 (Delhi - Trib.); SarojArora v/s ITO Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Capital gains Profit on sale of property used for residence (One Residential housel Assessment year 2013-14 During year, assessee had received long term capital gain (LTCG

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. , JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Blea.C.I.T., Circle-1, Jodhpur. Revenue By Assessee By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-1A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by holding that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming deduction u/s 35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed to comply with statutory requirement of provision of section 35AD(7

M/S. SHREE TIRUPATI ASSOCIATES,BHILWARA vs. ITO, BHILWARA

disallowances even if payment made in cash exceeds Rs. 20000/- having regards to the nature, considerations of business expediency and other relevant factors as submitted above. 7. The condition laid down in rule 6DD (j) read with provisions of section

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:-

disallowance under section 14A is unwarranted. Prime Suitings Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, Ground No. 1 is allowed. 6. Ground no. 2 is consequential in nature and needs no adjudication. Accordingly, Ground No. 2 is dismissed. 7

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. M/S. ADARSH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. , SIROHI.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, as indicated above

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

Section 5A: Act to override bye-laws/resolutions. 7. On the above plinth, AO held status as AOP, applied s.194A & s.40(a)(ia) to interest, invoked s.40(ba) for commission to members, disallowed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. M/S. ADARSH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. , SIROHI.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, as indicated above

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

Section 5A: Act to override bye-laws/resolutions. 7. On the above plinth, AO held status as AOP, applied s.194A & s.40(a)(ia) to interest, invoked s.40(ba) for commission to members, disallowed

SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA,BARMER vs. ITO,WARD-1, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

7,40,430/-. Thereafter, the AO noticed that the assessee paid rent of Rs 1,87,864/- to M/s Rajasthan State Warehouse and failed to deduct tax u/s 194-I and on account of such failure, rent paid ought to have been disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. As this sum was not disallowed in assessment

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

7,45,080/-\nand added the same in the total income.\nIt may be true that some of the shares were purchased @ 15.93 per share but the whole\npurchase price of total 230076 shares is Rs. 42,68,762/-. How the AO can substitute the\npurchase price of Rs. 42,68,762/- with hypothetical purchase price

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

section 32(1)(ii) in accordance with decision of honourable SC in Techno Shares and Stocks v CIT (2010) of the act i.e. not only nature and character of the intangible asset should we clearly established but it is to be established akin to any asset. 7. Whether the Id. CIT(A) is justified in facts and law in deleting

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

7 on 31.03.2021 declaring its income at Rs. 2,97,690/- The return was processed on 24.12.2021 by CPC at assessed income of Rs.2,87,21,492/, disallowing the exemption claimed by the appellant of Rs. 1,34,89,828/-, Aggrieved to it. the appellant is in present appeal. I have carefully considered the facts of the case

ACIT, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH P. LTD., UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80IB of the Act. 5. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of Tribunal and the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in assesee’s own case. 6. Learned Departmental Representative, though, agreed with the aforesaid submission of the assessee, however, she relied upon the observations