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

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

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 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

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)

15 Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra Ld. CIT has upheld the decision of ld. AO. 2. SUBMISSIONS: 3.1. It is submitted that one of the pre-conditions for reopening u/s 147 is contained in section 151 of the IT Act, 1961 which reads as under: Section 151: Sanction for issue of Notice No notice shall be issued under section

ARJUN SINGH,KOTA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

15% depreciation allowable. Since, he assessee did not engage in the business of running of vehicles on hire, the assessee furnished d inaccurate particulars of its income by claiming excessive depreciation aggregating to Rs. 22,77,188/- on the above assets. Had the case has not been scrutinized u/s 143(3) proceedings an amount of Rs. 22,77.188/- would have

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)

15% of total receipt but in the case assessee no such situation is arising, ii) there is no investment out of current year income and the investment in shares was made in the preceding financial years, 27 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR iii) Even if the investment was made in other than mode other than section

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

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)

15,85,10,128) Unabsorbed depreciation or business loss as per books whichever is lower (1,62,54,32,352) Book Profit as per section

SAVITRI LEASING FINANCE LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

15,57,319/- (carried forward) as disclosed by the assessee in the original return. 4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the plea of the assessee that there was no claim of depreciation against income from house property and hence, no double deduction

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

15 to 16. It is relevant to\nadd that as on this date of agreement on 10.12.2014 M/s Medical\nDesign India Pvt. Limited was also not owning the aforesaid plot No. F\n28, Malviya RIICO Industrial area, Jaipur, as the same stood\ncancelled/de-alloted on 10.03.2006 by RIICO and the issue of appeal was\npending before the RIICO.\n5. Keeping

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

15,000 or  33 1/3 % (33.33%) of such income, whichever is lower. (iii) In the case of income from machinery, plant or furniture let on hire:  repairs to building [section 30(a)(ii)];  current repairs to machinery, plant or furniture and insurance premium [section 31];  depreciation