M/S GIE JEWELS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

depreciation allowable in accordance with the provisions of section 32 as if no deduction under section 35AD was allowed in respect of the assets on which the deduction under that section is claimed.] (3) Every person to whom this section applies shall obtain a report, in such form as may be prescribed30, from an accountant, certifying that the adjusted total

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 under section 115JA - Held, yes.” (i) In ITO v. Suraj Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2008] 21 SOT 79 (Mum.), Mumbai Tribunal again held that capital receipts which do not constitute income under the Act cannot be brought to tax net by employing the mechanism of section 115JB. The Tribunal

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 under section 115JA - Held, yes.” (i) In ITO v. Suraj Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2008] 21 SOT 79 (Mum.), Mumbai Tribunal again held that capital receipts which do not constitute income under the Act cannot be brought to tax net by employing the mechanism of section 115JB. The Tribunal

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)

depreciation on said rights. Hon'ble ITAT has referred that facts are similar to the facts for AY 2015-16 and the issue has been decided in favour of assessee in the very same order. It is pertinent to mention here this issue for AY 2015-16 was decided in view of the fact that identical issue has already been

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

depreciation on power plant and windmill, and the claim of deduction u/s 43B were examined in the course of original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. It was further submitted that when the AO in the original assessment proceeding has examined both the issues, the issuance of notice u/s 148 on those very issues is only on account

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

section 115J which preceded sec 115JA. This peculiar provision raised a controversy as to the legal implication of insertion of sub-sec (5) and sub-sec (4) in sec 115JB and 115JA respectively. This legal issue has been considered by Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Frigsales (India

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

section 115J which preceded sec 115JA. This peculiar provision raised a controversy as to the legal implication of insertion of sub-sec (5) and sub-sec (4) in sec 115JB and 115JA respectively. This legal issue has been considered by Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Frigsales (India

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

section 115J which preceded sec 115JA. This peculiar \nprovision raised a controversy as to the legal implication of insertion \nof sub-sec (5) and sub-sec (4) in sec 115JB and 115JA respectively. \nThis legal issue has been considered by Mumbai Bench of the \nTribunal in the case of ITO v. Frigsales (India

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

section 115J which preceded sec 115JA. This peculiar provision raised a controversy as to the legal implication of insertion of sub-sec (5) and sub-sec (4) in sec 115JB and 115JA respectively. This legal issue has been considered by Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Frigsales (India

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

section 154—Assessee was following straight line method of depreciation prior to the AY 2002-03—In the year in question, it changed the method to written down value method— Difference due to change in method of depreciation was shown in the profit and loss account under the head 'Expenditure— Depreciation'—Due to this change, book profits got reduced

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)

section. Similar provision was incorporated in sub-s. (4) of s. 115JA which is the predecessor of s. 115JB. But absent in s. 115J which preceded s. 115JA. This peculiar provision raised a controversy as to the legal implication of insertion of sub-s. (5) and sub-s. (4) in s. 115JB and s. 115JA, respectively. This legal issue