RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation and the Assessing Officer did not honour the agreement. 3.1.2. After the coming of Sec. 271AAA applicability of Sec. 271(1)(c) has been completely ruled out by Sec. 271AAA(3). Moreover, the provisions of Sec. 271AAA starts with a non-obstante clause and overrides all other provisions of the Income Tax Act which essentially includes

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

SHRI BHANWAR LAL KHICHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

C) No.486/2015 dated 04.12.2015) to submit that the Hon'ble High Court in the said case had held that Sam Higginbottom University required UGC approval before starting courses and applying the same reasoning, the appellant University also requires approval of UGC and which has not been taken. It was accordingly submitted that there is no infirminity in the order passed

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

Section 32(2)(iii) of I.T. Act, 1961 and so was not admissible. The\nassessee firm filed its explanation to object notice u/s 154 and claimed that said\nunabsorbed depreciation is allowable to it as per law and cited various judicial\nprecedents on the issue in its favour. The Ld. A.O. without appreciating the legal\nposition as pronounced in various

RAJASTHAN STATE TEXT BOOK BOARD,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act the ld. AR has submitted that initially the assessee used to supply textbooks entirely to the government schools under the scheme of free of cost however, over the time the private educational institutions have taken the significant number of students the assessee has started supplying the textbooks to the private distributors

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

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

Section 32(2)(iii) of I.T. Act, 1961 and so was not admissible. The\nassessee firm filed its explanation to object notice u/s 154 and claimed that said\nunabsorbed depreciation is allowable to it as per law and cited various judicial\nprecedents on the issue in its favour. The Ld. A.O. without appreciating the legal\nposition as pronounced in various

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 35AD\nin accordance with law for Rs.15,25,62,502/-. However, the approval\nfrom the Ministry of Tourism was delayed and it was received on\n16/3/2016 valid from 14/3/2016 to 13/3/2021 (five years). Copy of the\ncertificate so received is available on Paper Book Page No. 10-11. In\nview of this, the claim of the assessee of deduction

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

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.”

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

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

c) of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12 respectively. For the assessment year 2004-05 the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- ITA No. 933 to 935,937 &890/JP/2017 ACIT v M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer “ In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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

c) of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12 respectively. For the assessment year 2004-05 the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- ITA No. 933 to 935,937 &890/JP/2017 ACIT v M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer “ In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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

c) of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12 respectively. For the assessment year 2004-05 the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- ITA No. 933 to 935,937 &890/JP/2017 ACIT v M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer “ In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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

c) of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12 respectively. For the assessment year 2004-05 the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- ITA No. 933 to 935,937 &890/JP/2017 ACIT v M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer “ In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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

c) of the I.T. Act for the assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2011-12 respectively. For the assessment year 2004-05 the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- ITA No. 933 to 935,937 &890/JP/2017 ACIT v M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer “ In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

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