ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation eligible for application should be recomputed after verification as per law by the assessing officer as the same was not verified by the assessing officer while making the original assessment. 7. In respect of ground number 3, the same were allowed to be carried forward earlier as Business losses in the appeal order (earlier 11-12 order) referred

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation eligible for application should be recomputed after verification as per law by the assessing officer as the same was not verified by the assessing officer while making the original assessment. 7. In respect of ground number 3, the same were allowed to be carried forward earlier as Business losses in the appeal order (earlier 11-12 order) referred

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation eligible for application should be recomputed after verification as per law by the assessing officer as the same was not verified by the assessing officer while making the original assessment. 7. In respect of ground number 3, the same were allowed to be carried forward earlier as Business losses in the appeal order (earlier 11-12 order) referred

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation eligible for application should be recomputed after verification as per law by the assessing officer as the same was not verified by the assessing officer while making the original assessment. 7. In respect of ground number 3, the same were allowed to be carried forward earlier as Business losses in the appeal order (earlier 11-12 order) referred

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation eligible for application should be recomputed after verification as per law by the assessing officer as the same was not verified by the assessing officer while making the original assessment. 7. In respect of ground number 3, the same were allowed to be carried forward earlier as Business losses in the appeal order (earlier 11-12 order) referred

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

depreciable asset is liable to be excluded from calculation of deemed profits u/s 115JA. Exemption/ deduction allowed by one provision of the Act cannot be taken away by another provision of the Act. Sec. 115JA, the predecessor to Sec. 115JB, was introduced to the statute book and the budget speech of the finance minister while introducing the Bill

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

depreciable asset is liable to be excluded from calculation of deemed profits u/s 115JA. Exemption/ deduction allowed by one provision of the Act cannot be taken away by another provision of the Act. Sec. 115JA, the predecessor to Sec. 115JB, was introduced to the statute book and the budget speech of the finance minister while introducing the Bill

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

depreciable asset is liable to be excluded from calculation of deemed profits u/s 115JA. Exemption/ deduction allowed by one provision of the Act cannot be taken away by another provision of the Act. Sec. 115JA, the predecessor to Sec. 115JB, was introduced to the statute book and the budget speech of the finance minister while introducing the Bill

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

depreciable asset is liable to be excluded from calculation of deemed profits u/s 115JA. Exemption/ deduction allowed by one provision of the Act cannot be taken away by another provision of the Act. Sec. 115JA, the predecessor to Sec. 115JB, was introduced to the statute book and the budget speech of the finance minister while introducing the Bill

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

depreciable asset is liable to be excluded from calculation of deemed profits under s. 115JA. Exemption/deduction allowed by one provision of the Act cannot be taken away by another provision of the Act. Sec. 115JA, the predecessor to s. 115JB, was introduced to the statute book and the Budget Speech of the Finance Minister while introducing the Bill, House

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

depreciable\nITA Nos. 489 to 492/JP/2023\nACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd.\n23\nasset which is exempt u/s 50 of the Act. Taking notice of sub-sec (4)\nof sec 115JA which provisions, as stated above, was not available in\nsec 115J, the tribunal held that the exempt income under sec 50\nwould remain exempted as per provisions

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

dividend income of the Appellant earned from investment in equities and Mutual Therefore, as per working submitted by Appellant during assessment proceedings, these were not considered for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act as these expenditure are incurred purely for business purpose and not for making investments. 81. Accordingly, being satisfied with the basis of computation

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

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

depreciation is\ngiven for half year. This is plainly incorrect.\n5.\nAggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the\nld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)\nis reiterated here in below:-\n\"7. 3. In this context, it is seen that the issue on which

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

depreciable\nasset which is exempt u/s 50 of the Act. Taking notice of sub-sec (4) \nof sec 115JA which provisions, as stated above, was not available in \nsec 115J, the tribunal held that the exempt income under sec 50 \nwould remain exempted as per provisions of sub-sec (4) of sec \n115JA and therefore, capital gain arising

JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

depreciation of Rs. 60,13,003/- on the addition to fixed asset made during the year of Rs. 1,10,51,167/-. 3. 1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 14 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

dividend. The Revenue however relied on a circular issued by the Central Board of Revenue under Section 5(8) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 which corresponded to Section 119 of the present Act and this circular provided that if any such outstanding loans or advances of past years were repaid on or before June 30, 1955, they would

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

depreciation & did different interpretation which is not based on earlier order of Higher Authorities. 6. That the Ld. A.O. grossly erred in charging tax on Charitable expenditure i.e. Food for hunger Rs. 3,52,338.00. The Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not considering the ground. 7 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR 7. That

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

deemed necessary - Rishab Agro Industries Ltd. v. P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd. [2000] 5 SCC 515. The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process 13.8 He also serviced the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Tarulata Shyam -vs.- CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345 (SC) wherein it has been held that: “It is urged that the principle

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

dividend derived from investments with any other Co-operative Society is satisfied. In the case on hand, the argument of assessee is that the interest earned by the assessee is from Co-operative Banks/Treasury. The Co-operative Banks are registered under the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act. Therefore, the interest earned could be treated as meriting consideration under clause