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

disallowed? In due course of the assessment proceedings at various stages the assessee’s A/R vide his detailed reply quoting various judicial pronouncements. The relevant portions of the submission of the A/R in regard to all the above three points are re- produced hereunder in order to testify his submission critically: 1&2 In the matter of three separate audits

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

72,59,717/- as on 31-03-2014 which is much more than the above advances. Hence the 5 ITA 191/Jodh/2019 & CO 17/Jodh/2019 DCIT Vs M/s Kanda Edible Oil P Ltd.. disallowance made by the AO by applying section

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

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

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

disallowance of Rs. 4,72,08s/- on account of depreciation. 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.” 11. In this case, we heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The addition was made Rs.15 lacs

IDANA PET INDUSTRIES P. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

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

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

disallowance of Rs. 4,72,08s/- on account of depreciation. 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.” 11. In this case, we heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The addition was made Rs.15 lacs

RAMESH RAJ BHRA,JALORE vs. DCIT,BARMER CIRCLE,, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain(Respondent) Pan: Aappb 7135 G

section 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against disallowance of 50% so made by the AO. 5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 3 ITA 157/Jodh/2019 Ramesh Raj Bohra Vs DCIT 6. It was argued

PUSHAP RAJ BOHRA ,JALORE vs. DCIT, BARMER CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain(Respondent) Pan: Aanpb 4456 C

section 45(2). Disallowance of expenditure was restricted to 40% by CIT(A) as against disallowance of 50% by the AO. 5. Against the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 6. It was argued by the ld AR of the assessee that the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) dated

SATYA NARAYAN DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in respect of above said three issues

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) I.T.A. No. 49/Jodh/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. Pcit-1 Satya Narayan Dhoot C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate Jodhpur 106, Akshay Deep Complex 5Th B Road, Sardarpura Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. Pan : Aanpd4945L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain Department By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain Date Of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17 .01.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

72 of the Act prior to exercise of option of 'initial assessment year'. The losses arising in 'eligible business', if any, subsequent to earmarking of 'initial assessment year' shall however continue to be governed by embargo placed in Section 80IA(5) of the Act. 10. Hence, in the light of above discussion and in consonance with the decision

ROSHAN LAL BOHRA,PALI vs. ADIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-2, PALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) by the AO is confirmed. The assessee fails on this ground. ROSHAN LAL BOHRA VS. ITO, WARD 2, PALI 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR prayed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,72,029/- in respect of employees contribution to PF and ESI which should

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

disallowance as per the provisions of Section 14A of the Act, the said assessment order will be an erroneous one and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, as envisaged under the provisions of Section 263 of the Act. 70. In the case of CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

BHIKHAM CHAND MOHTA HUF,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO WARD - 1, HANUMANGARH, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

72,207/- in respect with assessment year 2022-23. Thus disallowed the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section

BHIKHAM CHAND MOHTA HUF,HANUMANGARH JUNCTION vs. ITO WARD - 1, HANUMANGARH, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

72,207/- in respect with assessment year 2022-23. Thus disallowed the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section

M/S. DEEPAK & COMPANY INFRA PVT. LTD. ,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANAGNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

72,66,473/- from Laxmangarh-Salasar Road. Apart from these receipts, the assessee has also shown other receipts of Rs.8,73,575/-. On the gross receipts of Rs.13,67,58,558/-, gross profit of Rs.62,15,997/- was shown and after claiming deduction of Rs.35,92,846/- u/s 80IA, the assessee has shown taxable income of Rs.26

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

72-104 11. Copy of assessment order for AY 2019-20 105-119 6. The ld. DR is heard, who relied on the findings of the CIT(A) and more particularly advanced similar contentions as stated in the order of ld.CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record, as well

TARUN MURADIA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 69A in the year under consideration. 4.2 Accordingly the addition made by the Ld. AO in the proceedings u/s 153A is without jurisdiction/scope u/s 153A hence illegal and uncalled for. In this respect, the ratios of above judgments are fully applicable considering the facts and circumstances which are totally similar and identical to above cases. Hence the assessment

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

disallowed.(Para 5.3 of the order) (d) The assessee trust has contravened the provisions of section 11(2) of the IT Act and consequently nothing contained in the provisions of Section 11 and 12 shall apply to the case of assessee.(Para 5.8 of the order) Therefore the appellant appeals for set aside the impugned order dated 26.10.2022 and order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHILWARA, SHASTRI NAGAR, BHILWARA vs. BHILWARA ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANG LIMITED, AJMER ROAD, BHILWARA

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

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

disallowances of 2 ITO v. Bhilwara Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sang Ltd. deduction of Rs.2,49,72,207/- made by the AO u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts as per the record are that the appellant assessee is a registered cooperative society under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act and engaged in the business

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 20,53,00,090/- making the additions/disallowances. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) by giving relief, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the order

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

72-104 11. Copy of assessment order for AY 2019-20 105-119 6. The ld. DR is heard, who relied on the findings of the CIT(A) and more particularly advanced similar contentions as stated in the order of ld.CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record, as well