KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

depreciation on CPP was allowed by the AO while framing the assessment under M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Section 143(3) after conscious consideration of the material on record. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the formation of the belief regarding the escapement of the assessment by the AO is based

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

depreciation on CPP was allowed by the AO while framing the assessment under M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Section 143(3) after conscious consideration of the material on record. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the formation of the belief regarding the escapement of the assessment by the AO is based

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

depreciation in respect of which deduction has been allowed as an\napplication of income u/s 11.\nIn view of the above, we hold that AO was not justified in denying the benefit of\nthe exemption u/s 11 of the Act and we direct the AO to compute the income in\naccordance with the provision of section 11. Ground no.6

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

depreciation in respect of which deduction has been allowed as an\napplication of income u/s 11.\nIn view of the above, we hold that AO was not justified in denying the benefit of\nthe exemption u/s 11 of the Act and we direct the AO to compute the income in\naccordance with the provision of section 11. Ground no.6

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

depreciation as application of income. 4. The first question that arises in the present appeal is the entitlement of the assessee society to exemption under section 11 of the Act. The relevant provisions which govern the exemption under section 11, are contained in section 2(15), 11, 12 ,12A, 12AA read with section 13 of the Act. 5. Section

TIRUPATI COLLEGE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

23 M/s.Tirupati College of Technical Education Society vs LD. CIT( Exemption), Jaipur managing committee members given unsecured loan to institution balance of them as on 31.3.2012 are as under. a. Amit Goyal : Rs. 2905641.00 (PB24) b. Manju Goyal : Rs. 3385314.00 (PB 25) c. Subhash Chand goyal : Rs. 286328.00 (PB 27) d. Priyanka Goyal : Rs. 401750.00 (PB 71) e. Kripa Shanker

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

23), (23A), (23AAA), (23B), (23C), (23F), (23FA), (24), (46) and (47) of section 10, section 11, section 12, section 13A and section 13B of the Act and assessed or assessable by an Income-tax authority at serial numbers 131 to 140 specified in the notification of Government of India bearing number S.O. 2752 dated the 22nd October, 2014. Thus firstly

M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.,VIDYUT BHAWAN, JAN PATH, JYOTI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, , JAIPUR

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

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

23 33,53,91,950 10,62,81,097 44,16,73,047 in Advance Receivables Total 67,29,57,798 (15,85,10,128) 51,44,47,670 From the abovetable it can be noted that in AY 13-14, 14-15 &in earlier years, the assessee has disallowed the provision for bad & doubtful debt/advances in computing the business

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

10:28 AM)(43 of 43)[ ITA- 236/2016] considered opinion, is not a valid argument. However, in view of the specific clause which has been there under form 10A, we are of the considered opinion that it will be open for the department while making assessment to follow provision of section 11(5) and section 13 to disallow the expense

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

10:28 AM)(43 of 43)[ ITA- 236/2016] considered opinion, is not a valid argument. However, in view of the specific clause which has been there under form 10A, we are of the considered opinion that it will be open for the department while making assessment to follow provision of section 11(5) and section 13 to disallow the expense

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

10:28 AM)(43 of 43)[ ITA- 236/2016] considered opinion, is not a valid argument. However, in view of the specific clause which has been there under form 10A, we are of the considered opinion that it will be open for the department while making assessment to follow provision of section 11(5) and section 13 to disallow the expense

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)

section 32(1) would mean double deduction, which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 43/[1992] 65 Taxman 420. The depreciation being notional expenditure will not fall under the expression 'actually applied' as held by the Apex Court in the case

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

section in the immediately succeeding previous year in respect of such asset.” 21. The aforesaid provisions thus statutorily provides for carry forward of the balance 50% of the additional depreciation in the immediately succeeding previous year in which the plant & machinery is acquired and installed and though the said provisions have been introduced with effect from 1.4.2016, the Courts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

23,697/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as ITAT confirming the fact that the subsidy or grant or reimbursement shall not be included in the actual cost of the asset; 3. Cancelling the penalty levied for disallowance of prior period expenses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

23,697/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as ITAT confirming the fact that the subsidy or grant or reimbursement shall not be included in the actual cost of the asset; 3. Cancelling the penalty levied for disallowance of prior period expenses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

23,697/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as ITAT confirming the fact that the subsidy or grant or reimbursement shall not be included in the actual cost of the asset; 3. Cancelling the penalty levied for disallowance of prior period expenses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

23,697/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as ITAT confirming the fact that the subsidy or grant or reimbursement shall not be included in the actual cost of the asset; 3. Cancelling the penalty levied for disallowance of prior period expenses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

23,697/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as ITAT confirming the fact that the subsidy or grant or reimbursement shall not be included in the actual cost of the asset; 3. Cancelling the penalty levied for disallowance of prior period expenses