INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

Section 2(15) is invoked in the case of assessee as the activities of the assessee being run on commercial basis and there being no element of charity? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in holding that the assessee is liable to claim depreciation

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

section 147 of the IT Act on 29.03.2013 at a total income of Rs. 20,28,203/- by making addition on account of net surplus as per income and expenditure account at Rs. 15,37,806/- and disallowance of claim of depreciation

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

section 147 of the IT Act on 29.03.2013 at a total income of Rs. 20,28,203/- by making addition on account of net surplus as per income and expenditure account at Rs. 15,37,806/- and disallowance of claim of depreciation

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

section 147 of the IT Act on 29.03.2013 at a total income of Rs. 20,28,203/- by making addition on account of net surplus as per income and expenditure account at Rs. 15,37,806/- and disallowance of claim of depreciation

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

15,21,440 Miscellaneous Income 1,43,98,908 Total Income - I 111,07,07,471 Expenditure Amount Establishment Expenses 69,25,18,423 General Administrative Expenses 4,98,42,868 Public Works 64,72,79,927 Interest and Financial Expenses 1,07,13,925 Miscellaneous Expenses 39,69,24,407 Depreciation during the year 2,26,84,619 Total

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

15,21,440 Miscellaneous Income 1,43,98,908 Total Income - I 111,07,07,471 Expenditure Amount Establishment Expenses 69,25,18,423 General Administrative Expenses 4,98,42,868 Public Works 64,72,79,927 Interest and Financial Expenses 1,07,13,925 Miscellaneous Expenses 39,69,24,407 Depreciation during the year 2,26,84,619 Total

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

15. The ld. AR further pointed out the differences where the private tour operator charges high fares comparing to the corporation for the same route. ticket at paper books 7 and 8 which is reproduced as under:- The ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that Section 3 of the Act explains that established of Road Transport Corporation where

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

15. The ld. AR further pointed out the differences where the private tour operator charges high fares comparing to the corporation for the same route. ticket at paper books 7 and 8 which is reproduced as under:- The ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that Section 3 of the Act explains that established of Road Transport Corporation where

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

15. The ld. AR further pointed out the differences where the private tour operator charges high fares comparing to the corporation for the same route. ticket at paper books 7 and 8 which is reproduced as under:- The ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that Section 3 of the Act explains that established of Road Transport Corporation where

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

15. The ld. AR further pointed out the differences where the private tour operator charges high fares comparing to the corporation for the same route. ticket at paper books 7 and 8 which is reproduced as under:- The ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that Section 3 of the Act explains that established of Road Transport Corporation where

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

15. The ld. AR further pointed out the differences where the private tour operator charges high fares comparing to the corporation for the same route. ticket at paper books 7 and 8 which is reproduced as under:- The ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that Section 3 of the Act explains that established of Road Transport Corporation where

ACIT, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD., KOTA

15 of Balance sheet. Hence depreciation claimed is allowable u/s 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 12.4 For claim of depreciation, the assessee has to satisfy the requirements of section

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

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

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

15. In Ground no. 3, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.2,02,91,277/- claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) of IT Act, 1961. 5 M/s Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT 16. In this regard, the ld AR submitted that the assessee claimed additional depreciation of Rs.2,02,91,277/- on those plant & machinery

JCIT, RANG-2, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED, KOTA

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

sections, i.e. where amortization is specifically provided, such as Section 35-D of the Act. 15) What is to be borne in mind is that the moment second option was exercised by the debenture holder to receive the payment upfront, liability of the assessee to make the payment in that very year, on exercising of this option, has arisen

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

sections, i.e. where amortization is specifically provided, such as Section 35-D of the Act. 15) What is to be borne in mind is that the moment second option was exercised by the debenture holder to receive the payment upfront, liability of the assessee to make the payment in that very year, on exercising of this option, has arisen

M/S BALAJI CONSTRUCTION,AJMER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, AJMER

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 154 of the Act restricting the claim of the assessee for depreciation @ 30 % is challgned by the AO and has restricted the depreciation claim @ 15