DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JPR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

depreciation is admissible under section 32, Shall not be deemed to be expenditure incurred by the assessee for any of the purposes specified in sub-section (2). (4) The deduction to be allowed under sub-section (1) for any relevant previous year shall be— (a) an amount equal to one-tenth of the expenditure specified in sub-section (2) (such

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

depreciation is admissible under section 32, Shall not be deemed to be expenditure incurred by the assessee for any of the purposes specified in sub-section (2). (4) The deduction to be allowed under sub-section (1) for any relevant previous year shall be— (a) an amount equal to one-tenth of the expenditure specified in sub-section (2) (such

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

depreciation is admissible under section 32, Shall not be deemed to be expenditure incurred by the assessee for any of the purposes specified in sub-section (2). (4) The deduction to be allowed under sub-section (1) for any relevant previous year shall be— (a) an amount equal to one-tenth of the expenditure specified in sub-section (2) (such

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

depreciation is admissible under section 32, Shall not be deemed to be expenditure incurred by the assessee for any of the purposes specified in sub-section (2). (4) The deduction to be allowed under sub-section (1) for any relevant previous year shall be— (a) an amount equal to one-tenth of the expenditure specified in sub-section (2) (such

DCIT, CIRCLE-6 JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, TILAK NAGAR JPR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

depreciation is admissible under section 32, Shall not be deemed to be expenditure incurred by the assessee for any of the purposes specified in sub-section (2). (4) The deduction to be allowed under sub-section (1) for any relevant previous year shall be— (a) an amount equal to one-tenth of the expenditure specified in sub-section (2) (such

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

depreciation is admissible under section 32, Shall not be deemed to be expenditure incurred by the assessee for any of the purposes specified in sub-section (2). (4) The deduction to be allowed under sub-section (1) for any relevant previous year shall be— (a) an amount equal to one-tenth of the expenditure specified in sub-section (2) (such

SCHOLAR'S EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,602-A, TRIMURTY DAVE APARTMENT, JAI SINGH HIGHWAY MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

Bench: The Cit(A), The Power Exercised By Him U/S 263 For Disallowing The Donation Paid To Other Society Would Not Fall In The Ambit Of Section 263. 3. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Finding Given By Ld. Cit That Once Exemption U/S 11 Is Withdrawn, Not Disallowing The Scholar’S Education Trust Of India Vs. Cit(E)

section 263. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding given by Ld. CIT that once exemption u/s 11 is withdrawn, not disallowing the Scholar’S Education Trust of India vs. CIT(E) donation of Rs. 1,83,60,000/- in computing the total income has made the assessment order passed by AO as erroneous & prejudicial

SANTOSH KANWAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO 6(4 ) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

2. It may be mentioned here that this appeal was instituted on 05.07.2024. Since then it was listed various times for hearing, but, none came forward to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant. As per record, earlier too there was non appearance on behalf of the appellant. Court notices issued to the appellant for various dates, including

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

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. 2.1 The Ground No. 1 of the assessee is general in nature which does not require any adjudication by us. Hence, the same

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

depreciation), treating it as capital expenditure alleging new UPS System is purchased. The copy of the bills is enclosed. The UPS system consists 20 batteries, which is to be replaced every year, therefore theses expenses are revenue in nature, hence should be allowed.” 2. Once the fact that batteries are to be replaced every year is not denied, the subjected

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,KOTA vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the Grounds No

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 ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE VS JCIT, RANGE-2, KOTA 2.1 The Ground No.1 of the assessee is general in nature which does not require

M/S. LAXMINATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,CHURU. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing. 5. The Petitioner Prays For Justice & Relief.”

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of notice u/s 274 of the Act which does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. That on the facts