ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be for the concerned assessment year. However, where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 has been made for relevant assessment year, no action can be taken under section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable

M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) and another applicable where an intimation was earlier issued under Section 143(1). It follows that it is open to the assessee to contend that notwithstanding that the argument of “change of opinion” is not available to him, it would still be open to him to contest the reopening on the ground that there was either no reason

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 of Rs.10,77,958/-. The assessee was required to subtract the subsidy amount from the assets to ascertain the WDV assets. Accordingly, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after recording the reasons for reopening and obtaining approval from the competent authority. 2.2 The notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and duly served

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

ii) (prior to substitution by Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1-6-2016, now Section 153 (6) (i) expl.2) no doubt are relevant to Section 150 but as held by Gujrat High Court in case of CIT v. G. Viswanatham. (1988) 172 ITR 401, 408 (AP) Explanations 2 and 3, are relevant also to section 150, but their purpose is merely

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

In the result, appeals for the A

Depreciation has been claimed on building constructed-44bn rented land. Please justify. 11 ITA 1346 to 1348/JP/2019_ M/s Vaibhav Global Ltd. Vs ACIT 4. Name & add. with PAN of all the shareholders from whom paid up share capital, share application money and share premium amount received during the year. The same details may also be filed in respect

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

In the result, appeals for the A

Depreciation has been claimed on building constructed-44bn rented land. Please justify. 11 ITA 1346 to 1348/JP/2019_ M/s Vaibhav Global Ltd. Vs ACIT 4. Name & add. with PAN of all the shareholders from whom paid up share capital, share application money and share premium amount received during the year. The same details may also be filed in respect

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

In the result, appeals for the A

Depreciation has been claimed on building constructed-44bn rented land. Please justify. 11 ITA 1346 to 1348/JP/2019_ M/s Vaibhav Global Ltd. Vs ACIT 4. Name & add. with PAN of all the shareholders from whom paid up share capital, share application money and share premium amount received during the year. The same details may also be filed in respect

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

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ii) an incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from\nany information in the return;\n(iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year\nforwhich set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due\ndate specified under sub-section (1) of section 139;\n(iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income]\nindicated

RAWAT BAL VIDHA NIKETAN SAMITTEE,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

143 (3) of the Act on 31.12.2019.\n6.In that assessment, the ACIT (Exemption) held in unambiguous terms that based\non various irregularities found during survey proceedings u./s 133A at the\npremises of the assessee, coupled with the facts gathered is carried out during the\nassessment proceedings, the assessee had violated provisions of section 13\n(1)(c)(ii

OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

143(1)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act on the fallacy of presumption that the auditor has disallowed the employee contribution to EPF /ESI. Moreover, there are contradictory judgements of the State High Courts and therefore the issue is highly debatable and as such the CPC is not authorised to disallow all claims of late payment. The question

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

ii) Such escapement occurred by reason of failure on the part of the assessee either (a) to make a return of income under section 139 or in response to the notice issued under sub-section (1) of Section 142 or Section 148 or (b) to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for his assessment for that purpose

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the\n assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to\nas the relevant assessment year) :\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section\nhas been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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

ii) and additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act during the course of original assessment proceedings under section 143(3

M/S CENTURY INFRA POWER P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ii) by the Finance Act 2015, that allows carry forward of balance additional depreciation on the specified asset, which was purchased/ used for less than 180 days in the year of purchase, is merely clarificatory in nature. The disallowance thus made deserves to be deleted.” 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

143(3) nothing new has come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer and therefore the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO or based on mere changed of opinion which is not sustainable. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (Supra) while considering the identical issue as hold in para

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

143(3) nothing new has come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer and therefore the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO or based on mere changed of opinion which is not sustainable. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (Supra) while considering the identical issue as hold in para