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

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. 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

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

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

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

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

9,97,780/- vide\nassessment order dated 23.03.2022.\n3. On appeal before the ld. CIT (A), the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the\nassessee after considering the submissions of the assessee.\nNow, aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come in\nappeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced herein above.\n4.\nBefore

PATEL MINERALS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

9. It is respectfully that in order to comply and satisfy requirements of Section 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA company is required to obtain valuation report from Accountant and valuation adopted by it should be as per Discounted cash flow method. Company has obtained valuation report from Accountant Saruparia Somani & Co - Chartered Accountants and as per them valuation

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

9,15,77,230/- 25,94,25,580/-\nOn this Annexure-C and table, the AO asked the explanation of the assessee as to\nwhy the income may assessee company may not be determined on the basis of the\nactual sales as calculated in the above table for the respective years. In response\nthereto the assessee has filed the detailed