AKSHAY INFRASYS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

18,72,000/- and depreciation of Rs. 5,97,143/-. Since both the grounds are interrelated and has same set of facts the same are decided together. 14 Akshay Infrasys Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 10. The bench noted that the ld. CIT(A) has given the categorical and clear finding that :- “(vii) There is no documentation to show that

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation, and MAT credit set-off. The ld. DR vide submission dated 14.07.2025 further submitted as under : I. Limitation Period Under Section 149(1)(b) is Fully Alive The assessee has contended that the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation. However, this contention is devoid of merit in view of the amended 29 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO provisions

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)

depreciation by a charitable trust is allowed as deduction and does not amount to taking of double benefit.  CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli [330 ITR 60] (P&H)  CIT vs. Society of Sisters of St. Anne [146 ITR 28] (Kar)  CIT vs. Bhoruka Public Charitable Trust [240 ITR 513] (Cal)  CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) [131 Taxman

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

18,38,172/- and disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets of Rs.42,49,575/- made in the original assessment order dt. 25.02.2015 were sustained in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act dt. 24.10.2018.’’ 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the Revenue, the facts as emerges from the order

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

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 clearly stated that, if any amount referred to in clauses (a) to (i) is debited to the profit and loss account, the amount of depreciation debited to the profit and loss account excluding the depreciation on account of revaluation of assets, shall be reduced. However, in this case the depreciation for the year under consideration

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

section 43(6) as per rates prescribed. Ld.AO completed the assessment for AY 2013-14 vide orders dt. 28.03.2016 by re-computing depreciation by taking WDV as on 01.04.2012 as Actual Cost. Assessee preferred appeal against the disallowance so made by ld.AO, which was decided by ld. CIT(A)-2, Jaipur, vide order dated 18.9.2017, which was served upon assessee

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

section 43(6) as per rates prescribed. Ld.AO completed the assessment for AY 2013-14 vide orders dt. 28.03.2016 by re-computing depreciation by taking WDV as on 01.04.2012 as Actual Cost. Assessee preferred appeal against the disallowance so made by ld.AO, which was decided by ld. CIT(A)-2, Jaipur, vide order dated 18.9.2017, which was served upon assessee

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

18,85,649/- by making the addition of Rs. 1,92,939/- and disallowing interest payment claimed by the assessee against interest income under the head income from other sources. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who has confirmed the addition made by the AO without considering the submission

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation eligible for application should be recomputed after verification as per law by the assessing officer as the same was not verified by the assessing officer while making the original assessment. 7. In respect of ground number 3, the same were allowed to be carried forward earlier as Business losses in the appeal order (earlier 11-12 order) referred

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation eligible for application should be recomputed after verification as per law by the assessing officer as the same was not verified by the assessing officer while making the original assessment. 7. In respect of ground number 3, the same were allowed to be carried forward earlier as Business losses in the appeal order (earlier 11-12 order) referred

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation eligible for application should be recomputed after verification as per law by the assessing officer as the same was not verified by the assessing officer while making the original assessment. 7. In respect of ground number 3, the same were allowed to be carried forward earlier as Business losses in the appeal order (earlier 11-12 order) referred

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation eligible for application should be recomputed after verification as per law by the assessing officer as the same was not verified by the assessing officer while making the original assessment. 7. In respect of ground number 3, the same were allowed to be carried forward earlier as Business losses in the appeal order (earlier 11-12 order) referred

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation eligible for application should be recomputed after verification as per law by the assessing officer as the same was not verified by the assessing officer while making the original assessment. 7. In respect of ground number 3, the same were allowed to be carried forward earlier as Business losses in the appeal order (earlier 11-12 order) referred

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 u/s 32(1)(ii) being business or commercial right acquired during the year under consideration. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, necessary direction may be given to the A.O. to allow the claim of Deduction u/s 80-IA and 80-IC while computing book profit u/s 115JB

HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(3) of the Act. 6 HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR VS PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR 5. After culmination of the assessment proceedings vide assessment order dated 18-10-2018, a show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued on 16-03-2021 to the assessee by the ld. PCIT, Jaipur -1 observing as under:- ‘’Sub: - Show

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