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

20% of the cost of new plant & machinery which has been acquired and installed. There is no provision in the law which allows the assessee’s claim for carry forward of additional depreciation. Accordingly, he disallowed the claim of additional depreciation. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the amendment in clause (iia) of sub-section

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

20% on actual costs available at APB 30-31. In our view, even though the query letter from AO didn’t specifically mention about claim of additional depreciation and talks about depreciation claim, the queries raised by the AO were equally relevant for examining the claim of depreciation as well as additional depreciation and more so, when the same were

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 charged @ 20

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 under section 32 Rs.1,89,824 The condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction under section 147 is the formation of a reason to believe by the Assessing Officer. Upon the formation of the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the AO is empowered to assess or to reassess such income 'and also

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation actually allowed to him under the Act in the case of asset acquired before the previous year. Therefore, one has to read section 50 which provides for determination of cost of the acquisition of the asset along with section 43(6) and section 48 of the Act. Therefore, to sum up section 48, read with section 50 provides

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)

section 32(1) would mean double deduction, which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 43/[1992] 65 Taxman 420. The depreciation being notional expenditure will not fall under the expression 'actually applied' as held by the Apex Court in the case

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 115JB6,17,53,920 AO added provision for bad & doubtful debts/advances of Rs.15,85,10,128/- written back and depreciation of Rs.269,10,85,274/- to the book profit computed 20

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

Section 10(20) as amended by Finance Act 2002. 1.22. In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions, it is very humbly prayed that the claim of the appellant for grant of exemption u/s 10(20) may kindly be accepted for all the years under consideration. 1.23. The appellant has spent for development activities in accordance with provisions

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

Section 10(20) as amended by Finance Act 2002. 1.22. In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions, it is very humbly prayed that the claim of the appellant for grant of exemption u/s 10(20) may kindly be accepted for all the years under consideration. 1.23. The appellant has spent for development activities in accordance with provisions

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

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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. 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

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