GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Depreciation Claim 2. Investments/Advances/Loans 3. Refund Claim 4. Business Loss” As evident above, the complete scrutiny proceedings were initiated due to one of the reasons being ‘investments’ made by the Appellant. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Appellant vide submission dated 7 October 2019 (PB 36-45) provided the following information to the assessing officer in relation to ‘investments

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

2 (first para) of assessment order the Ld. AO observed that: “………section 36(1)(iii) categorically spells that only that interest paid is an allowable expenditure if it is in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business In Page 3 point 4 (fourth para) of assessment order he further observed that: ITA No. 886 to 888/JP/2019

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

2 (first para) of assessment order the Ld. AO observed that: “………section 36(1)(iii) categorically spells that only that interest paid is an allowable expenditure if it is in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business In Page 3 point 4 (fourth para) of assessment order he further observed that: ITA No. 886 to 888/JP/2019

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

2 (first para) of assessment order the Ld. AO observed that: “………section 36(1)(iii) categorically spells that only that interest paid is an allowable expenditure if it is in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business In Page 3 point 4 (fourth para) of assessment order he further observed that: ITA No. 886 to 888/JP/2019

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

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

211/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of captive power plant. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC,Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,12,32,05,778/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Solid Waste

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

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

211-TIOL- 72-SC-IT). 4.1.4 The powers conferred on the Assessing Officer under the Amended provisions are wide as has been clarified by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bawa Abhai Singh Vs. DCIT (117 Taxman 12) in which it has been held that — "The provisions of section 147, as amended with effect from

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

211/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of captive power plant.\n2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC,Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,12,32,05,778/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Solid Waste

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

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

211/- on \naccount of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of captive power plant.\n2. 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. 1,12,32,05,778/- on \naccount of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Solid Waste

INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S ALPHA BETA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

depreciation on the same. Moreover, ld. CIT(A) has observed that No transfer deed is mentioned as having been executed for this purpose. It is therefore submitted that ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition more particularly when the outstanding balance of M/s Sysnet Global was paid off by assessee by issuing cheque. 4.4. So far as allegation

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

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

211 ITR 0035\nPenalty under s.271(1)(c)—Concealment—Assessee making\nclaims for deductions for development rebate, depreciation,\ninterest and guarantee commission—Same disallowed by ITO—\nTribunal holding that claims of assessee, though rejected,\nwere bona fide-Same finding of fact—No case for penalty for\nconcealment is made out.\n(2) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RELIANCE\nPETROPRODUCTS

SMT. NISHA JAIN,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

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

211/-. The claim of depreciation as per audited accounts has been accepted by AO at Rs.9,22,183/-. Hence, the addition to this extent is apparently incorrect. Similarly the difference in the interest expenditure is Rs.34,012/- which is incorrect in as much as the interest is paid either to the bank or to M/s R.C. Jain Invest

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

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

M/S. GANPATI GLOBAL PRIVATE LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD1(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2. Capitalization & pre-operative expenses: All the fixed assets have been capitalized on the date of commercial production, i.e., 30th of November, 2013 (except vehicle & computer), since this date has been construed to be the date of put to use for all the assets. Pre-operative expenses incurred till 30th of November, 2013 have been apportioned to the fixed assets