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

16,98,068/- u/s 32(1)(iia) on assets of power generating unit whereas the same is allowable only on P&M which falls under sec.32(1)(ii) whereas the assets of power generating unit are covered under sec. 32(1)(i).” In the instant case, the assessee 7 M/s Compucom Software Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur has claimed depreciation

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

16 [Explanation 3.—For the purposes of this clause, any income derived from saplings or seedlings grown in a nursery shall be deemed to be agricultural income.] 17 [Explanation 4.—For the purposes of clause (ii) of the proviso to sub-clause (c), "population" means the population according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been

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

16. In this regard, the ld AR submitted that the assessee claimed additional depreciation of Rs.2,02,91,277/- on those plant & machinery which were used for less than 180 days in the Previous Year 2013-14. The AO observed that additional depreciation claim pertains to plant & machinery installed and put to use in AY 2014-15, therefore, same

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)

16 Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra opinion that if only he had read the report carefully, he could never have come to the conclusion on the material before him that this is a fit case to issue notice under section 148. The important safeguards provided in sections 147 and 151 were lightly treated by the Income-tax Officer as well

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

16,03,810/- acquired and installed during the year in the textile manufacturing unit. Additional depreciation on these plant & machinery is directly allowable under 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

SUPREME BUILDESTATES PVT LTD,MADANGANJ- KISHANGARH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2 AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation and development rebate. Section 35 grants deduction on expenditure for scientific research and knowledge extension in natural and applied sciences under agriculture, animal husbandry and fisheries. Payment to approved universities/ 15 Supreme Buildestates Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT research institutions or company also qualifies for deduction. In-house R&D is eligible for deduction, under this section. Section 35CCD provides

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

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 in tandem

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)

section 115JB of the Act which provided that if the amount of depreciation so increased due to change in valuation of assets, the book profit shall be increased by such increased amount of depreciation. However, the assessee did not do so. Therefore, vide noticedated 14.12.2019, the assessee was required to show cause as to why the amount

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

depreciation [section 32(2)]. (iv) Any other expenditure (not being a capital expenditure) expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning of such income. 8 RAJ KUMAR KANDOI VS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR The case of the assessee is covered in point no. (iv). Hence the addition made by the AO deserves to be deleted. Clauses

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

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)

section 32(1) and, therefore, there is no question of allowing depreciation on said rights. Hon'ble ITAT has referred that facts are similar to the facts for AY 2015-16 and the issue has been decided in favour of assessee in the very same order. It is pertinent to mention here this issue for AY 2015-16 was decided

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

16,157\nand depreciation loss of Rs. 85,63,826. While making the assessment, it was observed\nby the Assessing Officer that the loss claimed in the return of income relates to\ndepreciation and miscellaneous expenditure. In the absence of any business done, as\nadmitted by the assessee, the expenditure claimed cannot be allowed and depreciation\nis also not admissible

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

16,157\nand depreciation loss of Rs. 85,63,826. While making the assessment, it was observed\nby the Assessing Officer that the loss claimed in the return of income relates to\ndepreciation and miscellaneous expenditure. In the absence of any business done, as\nadmitted by the assessee, the expenditure claimed cannot be allowed and depreciation\nis also not admissible

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

16,157\nand depreciation loss of Rs. 85,63,826. While making the assessment, it was observed\nby the Assessing Officer that the loss claimed in the return of income relates to\ndepreciation and miscellaneous expenditure. In the absence of any business done, as\nadmitted by the assessee, the expenditure claimed cannot be allowed and depreciation\nis also not admissible

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

16,157\nand depreciation loss of Rs. 85,63,826. While making the assessment, it was observed\nby the Assessing Officer that the loss claimed in the return of income relates to\ndepreciation and miscellaneous expenditure. In the absence of any business done, as\nadmitted by the assessee, the expenditure claimed cannot be allowed and depreciation\nis also not admissible

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

16,157\nand depreciation loss of Rs. 85,63,826. While making the assessment, it was observed\nby the Assessing Officer that the loss claimed in the return of income relates to\ndepreciation and miscellaneous expenditure. In the absence of any business done, as\nadmitted by the assessee, the expenditure claimed cannot be allowed and depreciation\nis also not admissible

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

16. Going through the section 18 of the RSRTC Act which is explains the general duties of the Corporation it shall be the general duty of a Corporation so to exercise its powers as progressively to provide or secure or promote the provision of, an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated system of road transport services in the [Union