COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-VI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

depreciation on CPP was allowed by the AO while framing the assessment under 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 on any new material coming on record. Apparently, the formation

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

depreciation of Rs. 1,89,824 while computing its income. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the d. CIT(A) has erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte. The action of Id.CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by providing opportunity to assesee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

142(1) were issued and\nserved, thus the physical identity and physical existence of these companies\nat the given address is evident. A perusal of the assessment order will reveal\nseveral vital facts which are as follows:\n\n- During the course of assessment of M/s Sankatharan Sales P Ltd., details\nwith respect to loans and advances were asked duly

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

section 142(1) dated 17.08.2010 is reproduced as under :- Ministry of Finance OFFICE OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), JAIPUR [dated: - 17.08.2010 PAN-AAACZ 2642 3 M/s Zari Silk (India) P. Ltd., 10-11, Narain Singh Circle, Jaipur. Sir, Sub: - Assessment proceeding for the A.Y. 2008-09-reg. As you are aware that your case is under scrutiny

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

section 142(1) dated 17.08.2010 is reproduced as under :- Ministry of Finance OFFICE OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), JAIPUR [dated: - 17.08.2010 PAN-AAACZ 2642 3 M/s Zari Silk (India) P. Ltd., 10-11, Narain Singh Circle, Jaipur. Sir, Sub: - Assessment proceeding for the A.Y. 2008-09-reg. As you are aware that your case is under scrutiny

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

section 142(1) dated 17.08.2010 is reproduced as under :- Ministry of Finance OFFICE OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2), JAIPUR [dated: - 17.08.2010 PAN-AAACZ 2642 3 M/s Zari Silk (India) P. Ltd., 10-11, Narain Singh Circle, Jaipur. Sir, Sub: - Assessment proceeding for the A.Y. 2008-09-reg. As you are aware that your case is under scrutiny

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 32, shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing total income.. Therefore, since, the case at hand is of the assessment year, 2017-18 and during that year no set off of loss (including unabsorbed depreciation) was allowed against income u/s. 68, I dismiss this ground. 11. Vide ground

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

142(1) of 4 Girnar Software Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. the Act passed an assessment order making an addition of Rs 15,86,71,424/- on account of securities premium under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, 1961. 2.1 Thereafter, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2 issued notice dated 3rd March 2023 providing an opportunity for hearing under

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

142 Depreciation 9,855 Depreciation charged on freeze @ 15% of Rs.65,700/-. Godown rent 60,000 Paid to Devendra Surlaya. Ledger account and rent 143-144 agreement were enclosed. Interest to 1,80,000 Confirmation of accounts was furnished. 145 Mudit Goyal Bank charges 1,262 Bank charges for the period. Misc. expense 30,000 Godown Issue Fees paid

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

142 Depreciation 9,855 Depreciation charged on freeze @ 15% of Rs.65,700/-. Godown rent 60,000 Paid to Devendra Surlaya. Ledger account and rent 143-144 agreement were enclosed. Interest to 1,80,000 Confirmation of accounts was furnished. 145 Mudit Goyal Bank charges 1,262 Bank charges for the period. Misc. expense 30,000 Godown Issue Fees paid

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

142 Depreciation 9,855 Depreciation charged on freeze @ 15% of Rs.65,700/-. Godown rent 60,000 Paid to Devendra Surlaya. Ledger account and rent 143-144 agreement were enclosed. Interest to 1,80,000 Confirmation of accounts was furnished. 145 Mudit Goyal Bank charges 1,262 Bank charges for the period. Misc. expense 30,000 Godown Issue Fees paid

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

142 Depreciation 9,855 Depreciation charged on freeze @ 15% of Rs.65,700/-. Godown rent 60,000 Paid to Devendra Surlaya. Ledger account and rent 143-144 agreement were enclosed. Interest to 1,80,000 Confirmation of accounts was furnished. 145 Mudit Goyal Bank charges 1,262 Bank charges for the period. Misc. expense 30,000 Godown Issue Fees paid

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

142 Depreciation 9,855 Depreciation charged on freeze @ 15% of Rs.65,700/-. Godown rent 60,000 Paid to Devendra Surlaya. Ledger account and rent 143-144 agreement were enclosed. Interest to 1,80,000 Confirmation of accounts was furnished. 145 Mudit Goyal Bank charges 1,262 Bank charges for the period. Misc. expense 30,000 Godown Issue Fees paid

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

142 Depreciation 9,855 Depreciation charged on freeze @ 15% of Rs.65,700/-. Godown rent 60,000 Paid to Devendra Surlaya. Ledger account and rent 143-144 agreement were enclosed. Interest to 1,80,000 Confirmation of accounts was furnished. 145 Mudit Goyal Bank charges 1,262 Bank charges for the period. Misc. expense 30,000 Godown Issue Fees paid

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

SHRI SALASAR BALAJI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

142 of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nIn connection with the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 you are required to:\na) Furnish or cause to be furnished on or before 22/11/2019 at 03:15 PM the accounts and documents\nspecified overleaf.\nb) Furnish and verified in the prescribed manner under Rule 14 of I.T. Rules 1962 the information

BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE -4-JAIPUR, RJN-C-(104)(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

142. This revised return can be filed at any time before expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of assessment, whichever is earlier. The ld. A/R further contended that the assessee complied with the provisions of section 80AC of the IT Act by filing its original return on 25.10.2018 which

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)

depreciation, if any, under any provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed. From the perusal of the above provision, it can be concluded that the company who has opted to file its return of income u/s 115BAA of the Act cannot take the deduction