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

vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return …. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section,— (a) "an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return" shall mean a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the return

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

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

vi) of section 143(1)(a). 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in arbitrarily confirming the fact that 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

vi) of section 143(1)(a). 3. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in arbitrarily confirming the fact that disallowance of expenditure were made without providing the opportunity for removing the defect as per provisions of explanation (e) to section 139(9

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

9. REVISION OF ORDER UNDER 263 WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 14A 9.1. Main operating portion is sub-section (1) of Section 14A and the subsequent amendments has not changed the wordings of sub section (1). The Finance Act, 2006 has introduced w.e.f. 1.4.2007, sub section (2) and sub section (3) of section 14A. The sub section (2) of Section

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)

disallowing the legal and legitimate claim of the appellant solely on the ground that the claim was made during the assessment proceedings i.e. Acquisition of Fixed Assets, Purchase of Books and Periodicals and Payment of endowment fund to university of. This approach is arbitrary, unjustified, and against the principles of natural justice. The circular specifically emphasizes the duty

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

vi) or (via: of clause (23C) of section 10, section 10A [section 10AA], clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12A section 44AB [section 44DA, section 50B). section 80-1A, section 80-1B, section 80-IC. section 80- ID section 80JJAA, section 80LA, section 92E. [section 115JB or section 115VW] for to give a notice under Clause

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9,40,562/- and paid interest of Rs 1,98,599/-. Relevant information regarding relation of interest received and interest paid has not been furnished. Therefore, the Ground No 1.3 is DISMISSED.” 5. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A) where in the finding is recorded at para

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.

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.” 3. Being not satisfied with the order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

9. Apropos to the ground no. 1 the bench observed that the assessment year under consideration is A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has filed the return of income for the year on 28.08.2017 and as on the date of search time limit to issue the notice u/s. 143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

9. Apropos to the ground no. 1 the bench observed that the assessment year under consideration is A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has filed the return of income for the year on 28.08.2017 and as on the date of search time limit to issue the notice u/s. 143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

9. Apropos to the ground no. 1 the bench observed that the assessment year under consideration is A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has filed the return of income for the year on 28.08.2017 and as on the date of search time limit to issue the notice u/s. 143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

9. Apropos to the ground no. 1 the bench observed that the assessment year under consideration is A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has filed the return of income for the year on 28.08.2017 and as on the date of search time limit to issue the notice u/s. 143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

9. Apropos to the ground no. 1 the bench observed that the assessment year under consideration is A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has filed the return of income for the year on 28.08.2017 and as on the date of search time limit to issue the notice u/s. 143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

9. Apropos to the ground no. 1 the bench observed that the assessment year under consideration is A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has filed the return of income for the year on 28.08.2017 and as on the date of search time limit to issue the notice u/s. 143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

9. Apropos to the ground no. 1 the bench observed that the assessment year under consideration is A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has filed the return of income for the year on 28.08.2017 and as on the date of search time limit to issue the notice u/s. 143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

9. Apropos to the ground no. 1 the bench observed that the assessment year under consideration is A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has filed the return of income for the year on 28.08.2017 and as on the date of search time limit to issue the notice u/s. 143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

9. Apropos to the ground no. 1 the bench observed that the assessment year under consideration is A.Y. 2017-18. The assessee has filed the return of income for the year on 28.08.2017 and as on the date of search time limit to issue the notice u/s. 143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised

M/S. RAJASTHAN VIKAS SANSTHAN ,JODHPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S Rajasthan Vikas Sansthan, Vs. C.I.T.(E) Teesra Prahsar Bhawan, 1St A Jaipur. Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aaatr 3975 P Assessee By Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Revenue By Shri K.C. Badhok, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01/02/2021 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(E), Jaipur Dated 03/01/2020 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Cancelling The Registration Granted To The Assessee U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Incorrectly Holding That Funds Of The Trust Has Been Diverted For Purchase Of Personal Property Of The Trustees & In Form Of Highly Unreasonable Security Deposits Given To The Trustees Without Charging Interest, Thereby Violating The Provisions Of Section 13(1)(C)(Ii) R.W.S. 13(2)(A) & 13(2)(G) 1.1 The Ld. Cit(E) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Cancelling The Registration Granted U/S 12Aa Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By Not Considering The Decision Of Hon’Ble Itat In Assessee’S Own Case Whereby Vide Order Dated 16/12/2011 In Ita No. 11/Jodh/2011 It Was Held That It Case The Trust Fails To Comply With The Requirements As Mentioned In Section 11 & 13 Of The Act, Then Exemption Can Be Denied But Registration Cannot Be Cancelled.

disallowing exemption. Reference is made to the order of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of Young Scholars Educational 6 ITA 44/Jodh/2020 M/s Rajasthan Vikas Sansthan Vs CIT(E) Society vs ITO 12 ITR (Tribunal) 640. In respect of the payment made to the persons covered u/s 13(3), the assessee has already explained the reasonableness. The reasonableness

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

disallowance made by the AO by applying section 36(1)(iii) is not as per law for which reliance is placed on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas And Co. (1962) 46 ITR 144 (SC) (ii) B and A Plantations and Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 242 ITR 22 (Gauhati) (HC) 8. We have heard the Ld. Counsels