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)

234B & 234C of the Act.” 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee company is a closely held company, having interest income from funds available to the company, which is being assessed under the 3 Supreme Buildestates Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT head ‘income from other sources’. The assessee company has filed its return of income

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS AND FEBRICATIONS PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 KOTA , KOTA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, [ for short “Act”] by ACIT, Circle-01, Kota [ for short AO]. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The impugned order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 21.12.2018 is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons

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

depreciation—Mistake that is proposed to be rectified is dependent on the question whether the machinery used for production of safety razor blades can be said to be part of "Iron & Steel Industry" and can come within category (b) mentioned hereinafter—This requires interpretation of the expression "other machinery and plant"—This is surely a question which requires, firstly

M/S JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

3,47,485/- on sale of land and disallowance of Rs. 1,37,346/- on account of excess depreciation on vehicle. 6. On culmination of the assessment proceeding the ld. PCIT on perusal of the assessment record observed that the assessee company has shown profit on sales of fixed assets of Rs. 2,66,53,550/- under the head extraordinary

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\r\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in\r\nsections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).\"\r\n27. It is established principle of interpretation of statutes, that the Parliament is\r\npresumed to be not extravagant, in using the words

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)

3,099,901,014 Miscellaneous Income 323,911,442 Total Income - I 4,771,145,422 Expenditure Amount Establishment Expenses 121,580,202 General Administrative Expenses 140,384,922 Public Works 4,110,780,873 Interest and Financial Expenses 40,063,692 Miscellaneous Expenses 566,919,915 Depreciation during the year 97,706,544 Total Expenditure

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:

3,099,901,014 Miscellaneous Income 323,911,442 Total Income - I 4,771,145,422 Expenditure Amount Establishment Expenses 121,580,202 General Administrative Expenses 140,384,922 Public Works 4,110,780,873 Interest and Financial Expenses 40,063,692 Miscellaneous Expenses 566,919,915 Depreciation during the year 97,706,544 Total Expenditure

RENU KHUNTETA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as per rules." 6. Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal is that the order u/s. 154 is bad in law and on facts as the adjusted total income being debatable. 6.1 The appellant contended that the order passed u/s 154 is totally bad in law and illegal since

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE , JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

Section 11 of the Act made by the Appellant Trust Towards the charitable objects of the Appellant Trust. 5. under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

Section 11 of the Act made by the Appellant Trust Towards the charitable objects of the Appellant Trust. 5. under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not allowing the depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case

HARBANS LAL SETHI,JAIPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, KOTA

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

234B & 234D of the Act and as also in withdrawing interest u/s 244A of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging and withdrawal of any such interest. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full." 3.1 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee

S.R. PROTIENS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the disallowance of Rs 71,795 is hereby deleted

3. Rs. 45,729/-: The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the action of the ld. AO in allowing the depreciation @10% on AC, D.G.Set, electronics items and water cooler as against 15% claimed by the assessee and allowable as per M/s S.R. Proteins

SHRI SUNDER LAL ADVANI,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

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

depreciation thereon. 6. That the ld. Assessing Officer also erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D and the learned CIT (Appeals), Kota also erred in confirming the same. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or amend any ground on or before the date of hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case are that

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

234B and 234C of the Act. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not issuing directions for dropping penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The appellant craves leave to add or to amend the foregoing ground of appeal, if it becomes necessary to do so in the interest

SWASTIC OIL INDUSTIRES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

234B, 234C and 234F of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging and without any such interest. The interest so charged/withdraw being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.’’ 2.1 As regards Ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee for A. Y. 2018-19 in ITA No. 34/JPR/2023 the brief

SWASTIC OIL INDUSTRIES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34 & 35/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s. Swastic Oil Industries F-5-F8, Industrial Area Newai, Tonk 304 021 cuke Vs. The ACIT Circle-7 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJFS 8180 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ

234B, 234C and 234F of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging and without any such interest. The interest so charged/withdraw being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.’’ 2.1 As regards Ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee for A. Y. 2018-19 in ITA No. 34/JPR/2023 the brief

RAJIV GANDHI VIDHYA PITH SHIKSHA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION W(1), JAIPUR

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

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by the ITO (Exemption), Ward-1, Jaipur. 2 Rajiv Gandhi Vidhya Pith Shiksha vs. ITO 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. 1. The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order u/s 143(3) dated 19.11.2018 are bad in law and on facts of the case

AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, ALWAR

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

section 250 of the I.T. Act,\n1961, for the assessment year 2010-11.\n2.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-\n\"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. A.O. has erred in\nlaw as well as on facts in Issuing notice u/s 148 to an entity which