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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in\nsections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) \nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this\nsection has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

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

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation on CPP was\nallowed by the AO while framing the assessment under Section 143(3) after conscious\nconsideration of the material on record. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the formation\nof the belief regarding the escapement of the assessment by the AO is based on any new material\ncoming on record. Apparently, the formation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

198. (Case law Paper Book page 13-16) Held that section 276DD stood omitted from the Act but not repealed and hence, a prosecution could not have been launched by invoking section 6 of the General Clauses Act after its omission. (iii) Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/S. GE Thermometrics

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

198. (Case law Paper Book page 13-16) Held that section 276DD stood omitted from the Act but not repealed and hence, a prosecution could not have been launched by invoking section 6 of the General Clauses Act after its omission. (iii) Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus M/S. GE Thermometrics

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS BUILDTECH PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

198/-. Since the land was not capital assets by virtue of provisions of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, the same was claimed to be not taxable. The same fact was also accepted by the A.O. However, the A.O. opined that the gain on sales of the land is taxable under the provisions of Section 115JB

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

depreciation etc—Tribunal after taking note of factual position,\nmore particularly, that addition which was made in reassessment proceedings\nhaving been deleted by CIT(A) reassessment on heads which were not part of\nreasons recorded for reopening assessment is not sustainable—Held, in case of\nGKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Versus Income-Tax Officer and Ors., (2003) 259\nITR

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

depreciation etc—Tribunal after taking note of factual position,\nmore particularly, that addition which was made in reassessment proceedings\nhaving been deleted by CIT(A) reassessment on heads which were not part of\nreasons recorded for reopening assessment is not sustainable—Held, in case of\nGKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Versus Income-Tax Officer and Ors., (2003) 259\nITR

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

198 ITR 511(Cal) CIT vs. Lucknow Public Educational Society318 ITR 0223 (All HC) Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust vs. DCIT (2019) 6 TMI 595 (Cochin) 4. Application of funds deemed to have been made for the benefit of specified person Section 13(2): In some earlier years there was a miss happening with the assessee association that his president deliberately

INDIAN MEDICAL TRUST,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the\nrevenue are dismissed

depreciation of Rs.16,66,58,482, educational expenses of Rs.2,64,16,748/- incurred on\npractical training to the students of BJMC (Bachelor degree in journalism and mass\ncommunication) and MJMC (Master degree in journalism and mass communication) though\nallowed in earlier years and deduction under section 11(1)(a) of Rs.3,49,10,237/- (up to 15% of\ngross

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

section 147 in the reason was typographical error, if considered correct, 46 Lovely promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT non-observation of such serious typographical error by two senior officers i.e. (i) Range Head forwarding reason to approval authority with recommendation for approval and (ii) Pr. CIT, approving Authority. Non observation of such serious typographical error led to the conclusion that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

198 ITR 297 (SC)] held that proceedings u/s. 147 are for the benefit of revenue and are aimed at gathering the "escaped income" of an assessee. It ITA No. 960/JP/2018 & CO No.05/JP/2020 9 M/s Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust vs. ITO (E) has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that although for reassessment of income there must exist

M/S. ARSH VISION C/O- M/S. MAHENDRA GARGIEYA & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES & TAX CONSULTANTS, 537-539, 5TH FLOOR, MAHIMA'S TRINITY, NEAR JYOTI RAO PHULE COLLEGE, NEW SANGANER ROAD, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, AJMER, CIRCLE-1, AJMER

Bench: Us.

section 263. In support, the reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court decision in case of CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi (2005) 198 CTR (Raj) 546. 4. Coming to the each of the matters raised by the ld. Pr. CIT in his show cause notice, firstly, regarding the claim of depreciation

FATEHPURIA TRANSFORMERS AND WITCHGEARS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 801A(5) of the Act, profits and gains from eligible business for the purpose of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act shall be computed after deduction of notional brought forward losses and depreciation of eligible business in spite of the fact that they have already been set off against other income or non eligible business income, as the case