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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

801A was 44.25% whereas the NP rate of non-eligible business was only 9.75%. The intention was basically to ascertain and examine as to whether the claim u/s 80IA was legally correct and as to whether the common expenses related to both segment of business had been correctly allocated or there was any diversion of expenses of eligible business

ASSTT. 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

3. Heard both the sides, perused the material on record, impugned orders and relevant case laws cited before us. 4. In the 1st common issue, the revenue has challenged deletion of the addition made on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(DR) submitted that the deduction

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

3 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that in the present case the assessee has failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for his failure to submit the audit report in Form 10CCB in time. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s 35AD by holding that with regard

ASSTT. 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

3 The Id. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that in the present case the assessee has failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for his failure to submit the audit report in Form 10CCB in time. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the disallowance made u/s 35AD by holding that with regard

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

801A of the Act, either due to lack of enquiry or otherwise, is the original assessment order passed under s. 143(3) r/ws.144C of the Act and not the re-assessment order. Therefore, the period of limitation prescribed under s. 263(2) of the Act would run from the original assessment order. 20. Being conscious of the fact that

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

II, Opp. AIIMS Campus, Jodhpur - 342005. PAN No. AACCJ9336P Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR. Shri Amit Kothari, C.A. 01.05.2025. 01.07.2025. ORDER PER DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the Id. National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC/CIT(A)], Delhi dated 03.05.2024 in respect of Assessment Year 2015-16 where