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)

section. The aforesaid claim along with full details has duly been made by the appellant in the notes forming part of computation of total income. [For Additional Ground No. 3] 5.0 Allowability of depreciation on leasehold rights on land u/s 32(1)(ii) being business or commercial right acquired during the year under consideration 5.1 During the year under consideration

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)

depreciation does not amount to revaluation of asset. It is only a change in the allocation of the cost of asset to its useful life. Therefore, this amount cannot be added in computing the book profit. As far as not allowing deduction of Rs.15,85,10,128/- on account of provision for bad & doubtful debt written back is concerned

RAJ KUMAR KANDOI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

depreciation [section 32(2)]. (iv) Any other expenditure (not being a capital expenditure) expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning of such income. 8 RAJ KUMAR KANDOI VS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR The case of the assessee is covered in point no. (iv). Hence the addition made by the AO deserves to be deleted. Clauses

DYNAMIC POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

115 BBA of the Act starts applying and tax is paid at lower rate of 22%. The provisions of section 115BAA of the Act are herein below: Tax on income of certain domestic companies. 115BAA.(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of this Chapter, other than those mentioned under section 115BA and section 115BAB

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

115 JB of the Act. This issue has been decided by\nthe coordinate bench in assessee's own case for A Y 2014-15 in\nassessee’s own case wherein Bench relying on the order of\nSafeflex International (Supra) held as under :- \n“18. The sub-section (5) to section 115JB has been subject matter\nof interpretation by the courts

SYLVAN GREENS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation provided by Rs 1077958.00, only on the basis of suspicious without making any enquiry from the assessee. The nature of subsidy received by the assessee is in the form of VAT Exemption given by the Himachal Pradesh State Government to promote establishment of new unit/expansion of existing unit in the state of Himachal Pradesh in such area (Baddi

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.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

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.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

115 CCH 0026 KolHCReassessment—\r\nReopening of assessment—Assessee filed return of income declaring a total\r\nincome of Rs. NIL—Return was processed under Section 143 (1—A survey was\r\nconducted from which it was found that assessee has deposited money with\r\nNIL—It was further seen that said company is a specified person of assessee

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

115 JB of the Act. This issue has been decided by the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for A Y 2014-15 in assessee’s own case wherein Bench relying on the order of Safeflex International (Supra) held as under :- “18. The sub-section (5) to section 115JB has been subject matter of interpretation by the courts

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

115 JB of the Act. This issue has been decided by the coordinate bench in assessee's own case for A Y 2014-15 in assessee’s own case wherein Bench relying on the order of Safeflex International (Supra) held as under :- \n“18. The sub-section (5) to section 115JB has been subject matter of interpretation by the courts

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 wef 01.04.2013. As on 01.04.2016 the financial year in which the subject seizures occurred Section 1558BE provided for 30% tax on income refereed to in Sections 68, 69, 694 698, 690 and 690. The same was amended by the 2nd Amendment Act wef 01.04.2017, enhancing the rate to 60%. Hence there

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

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

115/- were shell\ncompany of Kolkata based from which the assessee have taken\naccommodation entry in the nature of bogus unsecured loan and also paid\ncommission and also claimed interest expenses in the return of income.\nConsidering that facts a show cause notice dated 27.03.2021 was issued to\nthe assessee through which the assessee was asked to furnish explanation\nwith

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned

MO. SHARIPH KURESHI,SIKAR vs. ITO WARD-4 SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

115 CCH 0026 KolHC. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has not consider these settled legal position in their true perspective and sense, rather wrongly stated that the trading addition is also part of cash deposit. This is wrong because there is difference between the trading addition which has been made by estimating the profit and in cash deposit which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since the original assessments were made and it was open to the\nIncome Tax Officer to make that presumption

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

depreciation of Rs.1,90,73,215/-.\n2. Brief details of information collected/received by the AO: The information has\nbeen received from the ITO(Inv.). Unit 1 & AIU, Kolkata vide letter No. 9301 dated\n06.03.2018 in the case. As per credible information certain bank account\ntransactions appeared suspicious. The transactions appear to be circular nature\nand the account appears to have

SHRI BABOO LAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 are dismissed, ground no

depreciation, interest and remuneration to partners. During assessment proceeding written submissions were filed and copy of audit report was filed. copy of cash book and ledger was filed but bills, vouchers, wages sheets, muster rolls, vouchers for payments were not produced although sufficient opportunity was provided to the assessee. Opportunity was provided to the M/S Baboo Lal vs. ITO assessee