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

1)(vii) the amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee for the previous year subject to the previsions of sub—section 2 of section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for depreciation on NSLR investment is also not allowable

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

1)(vii) the amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee for the previous year subject to the previsions of sub—section 2 of section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for depreciation on NSLR investment is also not allowable

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

1)(vii) the amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee for the previous year subject to the previsions of sub—section 2 of section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for depreciation on NSLR investment is also not allowable

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

1)(vii) the amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee for the previous year subject to the previsions of sub—section 2 of section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for depreciation on NSLR investment is also not allowable

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

1)(vii) the amount of bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the account of the assessee for the previous year subject to the previsions of sub—section 2 of section 36 is allowable. The provision for standard assets is not bad debts. Similarly, the provision for depreciation on NSLR investment is also not allowable

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

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, CHITTORGARH vs. M/S.THE BANSWARA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

vii), the opening advance figure on 1st April of each financial year has to be ignored. According to calculation as per rule 6ABA,it is clear that opening balance is to be deleted for each month. Fresh monthly balance is to be ascertained. No. Of months for each fresh advances were made are to be counted. Average advance

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

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

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

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

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 of both the parties and have perused

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 partly 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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not as per law. He placed reliance on the decisions referred in the order of Ld. CIT(A) (supra). 7. The Ld. D/R relied on the order of AO by arguing that assessee has not filed any evidence linking that own funds have been utilised for giving the interest