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.

depreciable asset is liable to be excluded from calculation of deemed profits under section 115JA - Held, yes.” (i) In ITO v. Suraj Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2008] 21 SOT 79 (Mum.), Mumbai Tribunal again held that capital receipts which do not constitute income under the Act cannot be brought to tax net by employing the mechanism of section 115JB. The Tribunal

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

depreciable asset is liable to be excluded from calculation of deemed profits under section 115JA - Held, yes.”\n(i) In ITO v. Suraj Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2008] 21 SOT 79 (Mum.), Mumbai Tribunal again held that capital receipts which do not constitute income under the Act cannot be brought to tax net by employing the mechanism of section 115JB

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

depreciable asset is liable to be\nexcluded from calculation of deemed profits under section\n115JA - Held, yes.”\n(i)In ITO v. Suraj Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2008] 21 SOT 79 (Mum.),\nMumbai Tribunal again held that capital receipts which do not\nconstitute income under the Act cannot be brought to tax net by\nemploying the mechanism of section 115JB

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

21,000/- 4 Manisha 1,00,000/- Meharchandani 5 Pratibha 2,75,000/- Bhargava He is a contractor. Payment is made to him for construction of 6 Sudhir Meena 75,000/- building on which TDS deducted. Total 6,26,000/- These persons are not specified persons u/s 13(2) of the Act and the advance given is also not investment/deposits

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)

21 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR 5.7 The present assessment order passed by the Id. AU cannot be viewed completely independent of the order of the withdrawal of exemption under section 101200, by his higher authority, Such order of withdrawal of exemption has been modified by the honourable ITAT in terms of the directions given

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

21 VST 505 (SC), (ii) Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia vs. Union of India (1971) 1 SCC 85 15. Sub-s. (5) which says that save as otherwise provided in this section. Similar provision was incorporated in sub-s. (4) of s. 115JA which is the predecessor of s. 115JB. But absent in s. 115J which preceded s. 115JA. This

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

depreciation of Rs. 52,88,222/-) net surplus of Rs. 1,58,99,324/- was claimed as exempt under section 11 and transferred to the corpus fund of the trust in Balance sheet. During the year 4,51,17,188/- on purchase of land and Rs. 45,66,860/- on other assets purchased was stated to be spent on capital

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

21,85,136/- and Rs. 1,01,56,689/- for these AYs respectively in their settlement Applications.” Thereafter Hon’ble Settlement Commission in the absence of complete evidence accepted 50% of the income declared as agriculture income by giving following finding at Para 25.1 & 25.2 of the order:- “25.1 In respect of individual applicants, we see that certain agricultural income

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

21,85,136/- and Rs. 1,01,56,689/- for these AYs respectively in their settlement Applications.” Thereafter Hon’ble Settlement Commission in the absence of complete evidence accepted 50% of the income declared as agriculture income by giving following finding at Para 25.1 & 25.2 of the order:- “25.1 In respect of individual applicants, we see that certain agricultural income

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

21,85,136/- and Rs. 1,01,56,689/- for these AYs respectively in their settlement Applications.” Thereafter Hon’ble Settlement Commission in the absence of complete evidence accepted 50% of the income declared as agriculture income by giving following finding at Para 25.1 & 25.2 of the order:- “25.1 In respect of individual applicants, we see that certain agricultural income

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

21,85,136/- and Rs. 1,01,56,689/- for these AYs respectively in their settlement Applications.” Thereafter Hon’ble Settlement Commission in the absence of complete evidence accepted 50% of the income declared as agriculture income by giving following finding at Para 25.1 & 25.2 of the order:- “25.1 In respect of individual applicants, we see that certain agricultural income

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

21,85,136/- and Rs. 1,01,56,689/- for these AYs respectively in their settlement Applications.” Thereafter Hon’ble Settlement Commission in the absence of complete evidence accepted 50% of the income declared as agriculture income by giving following finding at Para 25.1 & 25.2 of the order:- “25.1 In respect of individual applicants, we see that certain agricultural income

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

21,85,136/- and Rs. 1,01,56,689/- for these AYs respectively in their settlement Applications.” Thereafter Hon’ble Settlement Commission in the absence of complete evidence accepted 50% of the income declared as agriculture income by giving following finding at Para 25.1 & 25.2 of the order:- “25.1 In respect of individual applicants, we see that certain agricultural income

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

21,72,02,610/- out of \nclaim u/s 80IA of water treatment system due to transfer pricing \nadjustment u/s 80IA\n4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned \nCIT(A), NFAC,Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the \nassessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 4,70,31,231/- out of claim \nu/s 80IA

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)

5,21,152 3.7. It may please be noted that none of the additions based on the above reasons have been made in the reassessment proceedings. The additions made are on the following reasons: 10 Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra I. Accumulation of Income under section 11(2) Rs.1,11,000 II. Income from House Property under section

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

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)

21,500 qualified for deduction under Section 80G of the Act and therefore the assessee claimed of 50% of amount being Rs.1,12,60,750/- as deduction under Section 80G of the Act. The TPO/A.O. has disallowed substantial portion of donation under Section 80G of the Act on the ground that donations were not in the nature of voluntary contribution

JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

21,300/- (b) consultancy charges paid to Ritu Singh of Rs. 5,00,000/- (c) salary paid to Saurav Narnawat of Rs. 5,90,000/- (d) rent paid to Vikas golecha of Rs. 3,60,000/- and Jatindera Kumar HUF of Rs. 12,00,000/-. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming