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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

154 of Income Tax Act. 5. That the firms accounts got audited by CA Firm who had conducted Tax Audit and alsoallowed depreciation in full & hence no intention to charge higher depreciation byassessee firm and there is no mistake apparent on face of record and not covered in section

ADITYA CEMENT,BEHROR vs. ITO, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 154 of the Act. 2 Aditya Cement, Alwar 2. That the Id. CIT(Appeal) erred in confirming the order passed by the Id. AO which was time barred by limitation, the order was passed after time limit provided in the Act. 3. That the Id AO has illegally rectified the order u/s 154 and made illegal addition

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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

154, the appellant has withdrawn and added back ‘’provisions of expenses withdrawn’’ of Rs.s2,30,26,s342/- 8.2.2 In the original assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 27.03.2015, the A.O. had made an addition of Rs.2,30,26,342/- on account of disallowance of provision for the expenses. In the appeal before the CIT(A) vide order u/s 250 dated

M/S. GOLDEN TRIANGLE FORT & PALACE PVT. LTD., ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation in terms of Section 32(2) of the Act from the current years business profit by invoking ITA 943/JP/2018_ 3 M/s Golden Triangle Fort & Palace P Ltd. Vs dCIT provisions of Section 154

RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 154 of the Act.\nTherefore, after considering the above facts and position of the case, the\npresent rectification application cannot be accepted and accordingly\nrejected as the same lack merits\n3.\nAggrieved, from that order passed u/s.154 of the Act\nthe assessee filed an appeal before the Id. CIT(A). Apropos\nto the grounds so raised and after hearing

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 and investigation of certain facts cannot be rectified u/s 154 of the Act. In the present matter the Ld. AO disallowed the additional depreciation

RAMARPAN EDUCATION SOCIETY,,BHILWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, AJMER

In the result, appeal ITA No

Depreciation of acquisition should be allowed.” The AO rejected the application of the appellant observing that “the issues raised by the assessee do not come under the purview of the provisions of Section 154

SARAF EXPORT,CHURU vs. ACIT, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

154 of the Act in that event reopening of the assessment is not permissible. It is stated that this objection was not disposed of by separate orders. He further contended that another objection of the assessee was that once a deduction is given cannot be withdrawn in subsequent years. It is also contended that re-opening cannot be based upon

MAYUR GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 14A of the Act. The assessee preferred an application u/s. 154 of the Act which was rejected on the pretext that the assessee could not brought to the contention during the assessment proceeding and consequently the 15 Mayur Global Pvt. Ltd. vs.ITO rectification application was rejected. The ld. AO on this aspect seems to be too technical when

DWARKADHEESH BATRA,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) – One Against The Order Passed

154 of the Act. Some of the issues are common in both the appeals which were decided by the ld. CIT (A), therefore, the possibility of the said confusion in the mind of the assessee cannot be ruled out. Further we find that filing the appeal belatedly the assessee would not achieve any ulterior purpose or any gain. Therefore, having

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 leasehold rights on land u/s 32(1)(1) e) Allowability of Indexation benefit on transfer of Long Term Capital Asset 4. In this case, information regarding receiving of accommodation entry of non- genuine purchases, amounting to Rs. 1,55,68,397/- was flagged on Insight portal for FY 2018-19 relevant to AY 2019-20 as per Risk

M/S GOLDEN TRIANGLE FORT & PALACE,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation of Rs. 21,32,776/- of A.Y. 2000-01 and Rs. 6,68,848/- of A.Y. 2001-02 which was irregular as the time limit for set off within 8 years has lapsed as per the provision of section 32(2)(iii) of the Act. As such, a notice u/s 154

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without correcting the mistake which was apparent from record. The action of the ld. AO (CPC) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary ad against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the entire such order.’’ 2.1 First of all, we take up the appeal of the assessee

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without correcting the mistake which was apparent from record. The action of the ld. AO (CPC) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary ad against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the entire such order.’’ 2.1 First of all, we take up the appeal of the assessee

RENU KHUNTETA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

depreciation allowable in accordance with the provisions of section 32 as if no 8 Renu Khunteta vs. ITO deduction under section 35AD was allowed in respect of the assets on which the deduction under that section is claimed. Since the total income of the assessee is less than 20 lakhs hence, the assessee is not covered u/s 115JC

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

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

154 (SC), wherein it has held that: In the first instance, it needs to be recognised that as per section 14A(1), deduction of that expenditure is not to be allowed which has been incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. Axiomatically, it is that expenditure alone

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Section 14A of the Act. However, Ld. CIT(A) enhanced the disallowance by applying Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3.2 Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the written submissions. He submitted that the issues are identical as in the AY 2006- 07. He adopted the same argument as were made