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

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

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

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154, the appellant has withdrawn and added back ‘’provisions of expenses withdrawn’’ of Rs.s2,30,26,s342/- 8.2.2 In the original assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 27.03.2015, the A.O. had made an addition of Rs.2,30,26,342/- on account of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

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

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

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

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

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

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

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 provided by Rs 1077958.00, only on the basis of suspicious without making any enquiry from the assessee. The nature of subsidy received by the assessee is in the form of VAT Exemption given by the Himachal Pradesh State Government to promote establishment of new unit/expansion of existing unit in the state of Himachal Pradesh in such area (Baddi

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

154 dated\n10-7-2017 on the ground that assessee was allowed set off of brought forward\nunabsorbed depreciation of Rs.21,13,949/- of A.Y. 2001-02 & earlier years which\nwas irregular as the time limit for set off within 8 years has lapsed as per the\nprovisions of Section

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

154 dated\n10-7-2017 on the ground that assessee was allowed set off of brought forward\nunabsorbed depreciation of Rs.21,13,949/- of A.Y. 2001-02 & earlier years which\nwas irregular as the time limit for set off within 8 years has lapsed as per the\nprovisions of Section