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

disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished

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

disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished

DHABAN GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITY,SANGARIA vs. ITO WARD 1 , HANUMANGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

Disallowance of loss set-off against late return, etc. 3 M/s Dhaban Gram Sewa Sahakari Samity But the CPC adjusted

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

disallowance of discounts by holding that AO no-where in the order has brought on record that the claim made by the appellant was by way of fraud, by ignoring that the onus to prove the genuineness of the expenses is on the assessee who has claimed them. 7. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing set

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

disallowance of discounts by holding that AO no-where in the order has brought on record that the claim made by the appellant was by way of fraud, by ignoring that the onus to prove the genuineness of the expenses is on the assessee who has claimed them. 7. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing set

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

disallowance of discounts by holding that AO no-where in the order has brought on record that the claim made by the appellant was by way of fraud, by ignoring that the onus to prove the genuineness of the expenses is on the assessee who has claimed them. 7. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in allowing set

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished

KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

set off benefit of brought forward loss particularly the same has been accepted as genuine in the assessment order passed by the Ld AO. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the rejection of TDS credit of Rs. 46664/- claimed by the assessee and also allowable

CHHITAR MAL JAIN ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

disallowance of set off of Short Term Capital Loss by Short and Long Term Capital Gains as provided in section

M/S. KHADI GRAMMODHYOG PRATISTHAN,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1(2), BANGALURU / BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowing a sum of Rs. 3,51,811/- on account of current year’s losses. After looking into the entire factual matrix of the case, I find that assessee’s plea is untenable because losses can only be allowed when the return of income is filed within the stipulated time prescribed by the Act. It is noted from the order

SRM SPINNERS LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotesrm Spinners Ltd., Vs. Cit(A) / Nfac Sukh Shanti, Sukh Delhi-110002. Shanti, Sabun Marg, Bhilwara – 311001, Rajasthan, Pan/Gir No. : Aascs1833L Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit – Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

disallowances 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of yarn and has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2020-21 disclosing a total income of Rs. Nil after setting off of Losses

SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL, HUF,PALI. vs. ITO, WARD-2, PALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Mahendra Kumar Vs. Ito – Ward-2 Goyal Huf, Pali, Marwar, M/S Merita &Co,Ca Pali-306401, 244,Kamalanehru Rajasthan Nagar,Opp;Prakartic Chikitsa Kendra, Chopasni Road, Jodhpur-348008, Rajasthan Pan/Gir No. : Aaehm7139L Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri N. R Mertia, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit -Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A)-I, Jodhpur Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal As Under: Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal Huf, Pali. 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals-1), Jodhpur Has Erred In Law & Facts In Maintaining The Disallowance Of Interest Made By Ld. A.O Of Rs. 4,61,473/- (3,11,690/- + 1,49,783/-) By Invoking Sec. 36(1)(Iii) Of The Act Which The Ld. Cit(A) Erroneously & Unjustifiedly Held As Right Actions On The Part Of The Id. A.O. The Actions Being Erroneous & Unjustified May Kindly Be Cancelled. The Hon'Ble Itat May Kindly Allow The Appeal By Allowing The Claimed Interest As Revenue Expenditure.

loss account. The contentions raised by the Ld. AR that the assessee has utilized funds from the internal accruals for the purpose of business and the assessee has own/ surplus funds more than the borrowed funds and substantial material was filed before the revenue authorities and demonstrated the submissions made before the appellate authorities

TARUN MURADIA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

loss, claim for disallowance of interest of substantial amount, additions made on account of unexplained cash entries in the bankaccounts, etc.the ITAT noticed inter alia that all the additions werenot based upon anyfresh materials seized during the course of search. That was the first groundfor setting

BHOOP SINGH POONIA,NOHAR vs. ITO WARD, NOHAR, NOHAR

disallowed this claim for want of verification. A perusal\nof the record would indicate that inspite of survey carried out at\nthe premises of the assessee, the ld. AO was unable to pin-point\nas to why direct and indirect expenses are not required for\nearning a huge income of more than Rs.72 lacs which has been\noffered

M/S. SIR PRATAP HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. ,MADHYA PRADESH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.488 To 494/Jodh/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Sir Pratap Heritage Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Acit– Central Circle-1 बनाम/ 1, Amarkantak Road Jodhpur Dhanpuri, Shahdol Rajasthan Vs. Madhya Pradesh-484 114. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajcs-4923-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

set-off of B/F losses of earlier years. 1.3 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (AR), at the outset, drawing our attention to Ground Nos. 1 & 2 challenged the validly of assessment proceedings by submitting that since no incriminating evidence / material was found during the course of search, the additions would not be sustainable under law. The assessment proceedings

M/S. SIR PRATAP HERITAGE HOTELS PVT. LTD. ,MADHYA PRADESH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.488 To 494/Jodh/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Sir Pratap Heritage Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Acit– Central Circle-1 बनाम/ 1, Amarkantak Road Jodhpur Dhanpuri, Shahdol Rajasthan Vs. Madhya Pradesh-484 114. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aajcs-4923-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

set-off of B/F losses of earlier years. 1.3 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (AR), at the outset, drawing our attention to Ground Nos. 1 & 2 challenged the validly of assessment proceedings by submitting that since no incriminating evidence / material was found during the course of search, the additions would not be sustainable under law. The assessment proceedings

RAVINDRA HERAEUS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDIAPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in light of aforesaid directions

Loss Account ,to the extent disallowable u/s 40A, to the persons specified in Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. In other words in the ITR the assessee was expected to specify the amount which was disallowable in terms of Section 40A(2)(b)of the Act. On the other hand, in Clause 23 of the TAR read with Annexure

M/S. NOKHA AGRO SERVICES,,BIKANER vs. PR. CIT, , BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Nokha Agro Services, 18 Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Km Stone, Nh-15, Tax, Sriganganagar Road, Bikaner. Bikaner. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffn 8164 R

setting aside the original order. 4. The impugned order U/s 263 is illegal and most unjustified, as the same is not based on any valid material or legal evidence whatsoever on records, but the same is merely based on wrong suspicions and baseless presumptions. The impugned order deserves to be quashed. 5. The ld. Pr. CIT has erred in observing