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

7. The assessee has contested the disallowance broadly on the following grounds: • In the tax audit report, the auditor has only mentioned the details of contribution received from employees for various as to attract adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. • The disallowances made are beyond the scope and ambit of adjustment provided under section 143(1

SHRI SHESHAVTAR 1008 SHRI KALLAJI VEDPITH EVAM SHODH SANSTHAN,NIMBAHERA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

b). As held by the Hon'ble High Court, these provisions are distinct and independently applicable. 1.4The Trust is situated at Shri Kallaji Mandir, where all religious and charitable activities are carried out. As per the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 115BBC, the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Section 115BBC, which govern the taxability of anonymous

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 15,24,003/- in terms of 7 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. Therefore, due to lack of enquiry and due to incorrect and incomplete appreciation of facts, the assessment order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowing expenditure of Rs. 1,05,26,665/- for not uploading Form-10B (Audit Report) online before the due date due to technical glitches and practical problems on the Income Tax Portal and It is impossible to pay such a huge demand by the assessee-trust which has been badly hit during the covid (corono) period and facing genuine financial

DUSHKAL GO SEWA SAMITI,SUMERPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowing expenditure of Rs. 1,05,26,665/- for not uploading Form-10B (Audit Report) online before the due date due to technical glitches and practical problems on the Income Tax Portal and It is impossible to pay such a huge demand by the assessee-trust which has been badly hit during the covid (corono) period and facing genuine financial

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

UMED HOSPITAL MEDICARE RELIEF SOCIETY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC /ITO, EXEMPTION WARDM,, BANGALORE. JODHPUR

section 11 and 12 shall apply to the case of the assessee Accordingly no exemption is granted u/s 11(2) of the IT Act for the year under consideration In result the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. As the assessee did not receive any favour from the appeal filed before ld. NFAC/ CIT(A). The present appeal filed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1)(va) and section 43(b) of The Income Tax Act for such disallowances are applicable from the Assessment Year 2021- 22 and onwards. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order passed u/s 263 of the IT Act is bad in law and, void ab-initio and deserves to be annulled

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

7. In ground no. 3, the assessee has objected to the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets being claimed allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

7. In ground no. 3, the assessee has objected to the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets being claimed allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

7. In ground no. 3, the assessee has objected to the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets being claimed allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

7. In ground no. 3, the assessee has objected to the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets being claimed allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

7. In ground no. 3, the assessee has objected to the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets being claimed allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK, , JODHPUR

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

7. In ground no. 3, the assessee has objected to the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.38,01,442/- being provision for Standard Assets being claimed allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon’ble ITAT in the assessee’s own case in appeal

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

7. Whether the Id. CIT(A) is justified in facts and law in deleting the addition of Rs.4,00,78,257/- by failing to appreciate the fact that the AO specifically pointed out in Assessment Order that assessee failed to provide specific value of intangibles for which the extra consideration was paid which was claimed to have been paid

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)

b) of the Act inasmuch as the application contemplated thereunder is only additional remedy for the assessee which could not be said to be compulsorily resorted to by the assessee. The circular No.7/18 dated 20.12.2018 issued under Section 119 of the Act could not be, therefore said to have taken away the appellate remedy. 5.7 The tribunal misdirected itself

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

MAA BHARTI JAN KALYAN TRUST,KOTA vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals bearing ITA Nos 480 & 481/Mum/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

B) of the Act. The assessee paid the salary of Rs.6 lakhs to one Mr. Shubham Vijay, who is the son of the trustee. The Ld.AR stated that Shri Shubham is managing officer, who is handling the legal and accounts of the trust. The Ld.AR further stated that normally, the Chartered Accountants are having salary of Rs.8.91 lakhs per annum