M/S S B B J,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

depreciation and Misc. Expenses held that there expenses crystallized in earlier. On appeal Ld. CIT(A), confirmed the action of AO in respect of disallowance of overtime expenses, law charges and set aside the issue of miscellaneous expenses to AO for verification. Aggrieved by this, the assessee has assailed the order of Ld. CIT(A) before this Tribunal

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

Appeal is dismissed

depreciation and Misc. Expenses held that there expenses crystallized in earlier. On appeal Ld. CIT(A), confirmed the action of AO in respect of disallowance of overtime expenses, law charges and set aside the issue of miscellaneous expenses to AO for verification. Aggrieved by this, the assessee has assailed the order of Ld. CIT(A) before this Tribunal

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

18,76,828/- Building Rs. 21,44,946/- --------------------- Rs. 9,90,00,000/- We find these details are factually correct and, therefore, as far as the allocation of the sale consideration to the construction of building and boundary is not in dispute. The assessee has assigned the sale consideration towards building and land underneath by applying the ratio as value

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)

depreciation was allowed by Hon’ble Court and Hon’ble ITAT. We rely following Cases on this issue 1. Escorts Cardiac Diseases Hospital Society v/s Assistant Director of Income- tax (Exemption), Trust Circle 2, New Delhi 18 Taxman.com (104) Delhi ITAT. Under section

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

GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

18,248/- (Rs. 2997140/- of registration receipts, Rs. 27500/- of book bank receipts and Rs. 4093608/- of form and late fees receipts) by treating the revenue receipt as against capital receipts and receipts for the particular purposes without considering the earlier judgments of Hon’ble ITAT. 6. 7. The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter

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

depreciation by Ld. CIT(A) is misplaced. 6 M/s Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT 18. It was submitted that the Parliament in Finance Bill, 2015 w.e.f. AY 2016-17 has introduced third proviso to section

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

18. In respect of disallowance of additional depreciation of Rs.11,60,381/-, it was submitted that the same is claimed in respect of energy saving devices of Rs. 1,16,03,810/- acquired and installed during the year in the textile manufacturing unit. Additional depreciation on these plant & machinery is directly allowable under section

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

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 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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto. Thereafter, after taking into consideration the submission and explanation of the assessee, though not agreeing with it, the AO want ahead and recalculated the depreciation claim as made by the assessee in its return of income. It is thus seen that all material facts and figures are duly disclosed in the return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto. Thereafter, after taking into consideration the submission and explanation of the assessee, though not agreeing with it, the AO want ahead and recalculated the depreciation claim as made by the assessee in its return of income. It is thus seen that all material facts and figures are duly disclosed in the return