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

9. It is also submitted that section 36(1) of the Act which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses shall be allowed in respect of matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28. Clause (va) of said section reads as under:- “(va) any sum received by the assessee

SHREE TARAK GURU JAIN GRANTHALYA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU / ITO (EXEMPTION), UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

9) and has processed it by accepting the revenue and capital expenditure though denying the disputed exemption claimed by the assessee. 8. In our view, once the return has been processed as a valid return, the question arises whether disallowances made is permissible adjustment under Section

SHREE TARAK GURU JAIN GRANTHALYA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU / ITO (EXEMPTION), UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

9) and has processed it by accepting the revenue and capital expenditure though denying the disputed exemption claimed by the assessee. 8. In our view, once the return has been processed as a valid return, the question arises whether disallowances made is permissible adjustment under Section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the amount of Rs 9,78,046/-. We also further rely on following cases:  CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (2014) 99 DTR 131 (Raj.)  CIT v. Alom Extrusions Limited reported in 319 ITR 306(SC)  CIT v. Aimil Limited reported in (2010) 321 ITR 508(Del.)  CIT Vs. Vinay Cement Ltd.(SC)  DCIT Vs. Bengal Chemicals

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

9. Avtar Singh guru mukh V/S ITO (1991) 97 CTR (SC) 251. Where in payment made for purchase in cash of stock in trade doesn't amount to expenditure under Compelling/Exceptional circumstance to execute deal and same is allowed. (Copy Enclosed) 4. Disallowances U/s 40A(3) was not justified where unavoidable circumstances in assessee's case were clearly covered

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

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

disallowance of expenditure were made without providing the opportunity for removing the defect as per provisions of explanation (e) to section 139(9

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

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

disallowance of expenditure were made without providing the opportunity for removing the defect as per provisions of explanation (e) to section 139(9

NAVAL KISHORE DAGA,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed wherein Interest Income is more than expenses or Appellant is having sufficient Interest Free Fund or owned Funds: 1. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs Rajendra Prasad Moody 115 ITR 519 (SC) COME 2. Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of CIT Vs Gopikrishan Murlidhar, 47 ITR 469 (AP) We would like to submit

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

disallow the claimed capital expenditure of Rs.5,25,52,586/-. Since, the assessee was hit by provision of section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 the total taxable income comes to Rs.6,71,88,566/- (Rs.1,46,35,981/- + Rs.5,25,52,586/-), therefore, the assessment done at NIL income by the AO is erroneous as the final computation

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

disallowance of provision for wage revision of workman Rs. 9,10,42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend

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

disallowance of provision for wage revision of workman Rs. 9,10,42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend

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

disallowance of provision for wage revision of workman Rs. 9,10,42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend

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

disallowance of provision for wage revision of workman Rs. 9,10,42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend

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

disallowance of provision for wage revision of workman Rs. 9,10,42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend

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

disallowance of provision for wage revision of workman Rs. 9,10,42,530/- ignoring the fact that payment were made in F.Y. 2010-11 and neither the quantum for provision of wage revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend

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

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

disallowance u/s.438 can be made only of an amount which was a sum payable. The relevant law under the service tax was payable on cash basis. No material is available to show that the liability of Rs.9,60,672/- as service tax was incurred before the end of the relevant previous year under the service tax law. In the circumstances

SHREE VISHWAKARMA SUTRADHAR SAMPATI TRUST,BIKANER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Hearing On The Case.

9. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the Act and brought to tax the excess of income of over expenditure at MMR rate for reasons discussed above. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Assessing Officer. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing exemption claimed under section 11 which resulted in a demand to be payable by the taxpayer amount of Rs. 13489828. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has submitted that appellant is registered u/s. 12A and 80G by the Commissioner as it is engaged in imparting education and running various education institutions. The appellant had not filed return