ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LTD,,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

35D are fully satisfied and the appellant is entitled to claim 1/5th of the expenses incurred as revenue. 7. That the ld. Assessing Officer has further erred in calculating the interest payable under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as Rs. 3,86,051/- instead of Rs. 4,41,202/- and ld. CIT(Appeals), Ajmer, has erred

SHRI HARSHVARDHAN JOHARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 2 of assessee’s appeal is dismissed

capital expenditure or for personal purposes. It was expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. That being so, such amount was properly allowed in computing the income chargeable under section 28 of the Act.” 17. It is thus seen that in the aforesaid case, the assessee is an existing partnership firm which was carrying

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

section 263 by the Commissioner proper and valid. [Para 16] (c) In the case of Jeevan Investment & Finance (P.) ltd. Vs CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 552 (Bombay], it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that: " ..... merely asking a question which goes to the root of the matter and not carrying it further is a case

RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

35D(2) of the Act. The Ld. DR submitted that in the original assessment proceedings no query was raised in this respect. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind on the issue of allowability of such claim hence non-considering of this issue resulted into the income escaped assessment. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in re-opening

AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, ALWAR

In the result, all the appeal of the assessee is allowed

35D (5): 35DDA; 358; 41 (1) (Any benefit accrued by the\namalgamated co.) from cessation of liability of amalgamating company shall be taxed in\nthe hands of the amalgamated company), 43 (1); 43 (6); 32 and 43 (6) (c); 43C; 47 (vi);\n(via) (viaa) (viab), 47 (vii); 72A, 72AB, etc. under the Income Tax Act. wherein the event

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

gains of business or profession", (a) in the case of any assessee (ia) any interest, commission or brokerage, [rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub-contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work), on which