VINOD KUMAR MITTAL,BEAWAR vs. ITO, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section are loan or advance and for the individual benefit of such shareholders. The loan is something different from debt. For a loan there must be a lender, borrower as well as a contract/agreement between the parties for the return of the loan amount. Every sale of goods on credit does not amount to a transaction of loan

SHRI GOVIND SWAROOP GARG,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, AJMER

In the result, ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Section 2(22)(e) is unambiguous and states “……..payment by any such company on behalf, or for the individual benefit, of any such shareholder, to the extent to which the company in either case possesses accumulated profits.” i) So far as the accumulated profit is concerned, assessee has again disputed the same by arguing that it will further be reduced

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

depreciation on CPP was allowed by the AO while framing the assessment under M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Section 143(3) after conscious consideration of the material on record. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the formation of the belief regarding the escapement of the assessment by the AO is based

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

depreciation on CPP was allowed by the AO while framing the assessment under M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Section 143(3) after conscious consideration of the material on record. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the formation of the belief regarding the escapement of the assessment by the AO is based

SHRI BHANWAR LAL KHICHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section (2) of section 288 and furnish along with the return of income for the relevant assessment year, the report of such audit in the prescribed form14 duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed:] 15[Provided also that any amount of donation received by the fund or institution in terms

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, on the ground that in the original assessment depreciation was wrongly allowed on the entire cost of Rs. 85,091 shown as cost of the building which included Rs. 12,000 as cost of land. By order dated February 22

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

depreciation or not. However, as far as the disclosure on part of the assessee is concerned, we find that there is no such failure of any material facts and therefore, even in respect of the present matter, the condition so 22 M/s Compucom Software Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur specified in the proviso to 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)

22 to 27 of the Act and the income from business have to be computed under sections 28 and 44 of the Act. Such computed income is exempted from tax under sections 11 13 Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra and 13, if 85% o f the same is spent on the charitable objects. Once the income is computed and determined

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

section 32(i)(iia) of the Act and the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2012 doesn’t in any manner impact such a claim of the assessee and thus, the disallowance so made of additional depreciation is hereby directed to be deleted. 22

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

section in the immediately succeeding previous year in respect of such asset.” 21. The aforesaid provisions thus statutorily provides for carry forward of the balance 50% of the additional depreciation in the immediately succeeding previous year in which the plant & machinery is acquired and installed and though the said provisions have been introduced with effect from 1.4.2016, the Courts

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 & did different interpretation which is not based on earlier order of Higher Authorities. 6. That the Ld. A.O. grossly erred in charging tax on Charitable expenditure i.e. Food for hunger Rs. 3,52,338.00. The Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not considering the ground. 7 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR 7. That

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation. 7. That the learned C.I.T. (Appeals) erred in not allowing Credit of MAT of Rs. 22,10,576/- available for credit as per return. Tax Liability should have been recomputed on assessed income after giving credit of MAT Credit available. 8. The appellant craves to add, amend or delete the grounds of Appeal at the time of hearing

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

22,05,23,697/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as ITAT confirming the fact that the subsidy or grant or reimbursement shall not be included in the actual cost of the asset; 3. Cancelling the penalty levied for disallowance of prior period expenses

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

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

22,05,23,697/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as ITAT confirming the fact that the subsidy or grant or reimbursement shall not be included in the actual cost of the asset; 3. Cancelling the penalty levied for disallowance of prior period expenses

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

22,05,23,697/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as ITAT confirming the fact that the subsidy or grant or reimbursement shall not be included in the actual cost of the asset; 3. Cancelling the penalty levied for disallowance of prior period expenses

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

22,05,23,697/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as ITAT confirming the fact that the subsidy or grant or reimbursement shall not be included in the actual cost of the asset; 3. Cancelling the penalty levied for disallowance of prior period expenses

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

22,05,23,697/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as ITAT confirming the fact that the subsidy or grant or reimbursement shall not be included in the actual cost of the asset; 3. Cancelling the penalty levied for disallowance of prior period expenses

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)

22-03-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2015-16 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in- upholding the validity of the order passed