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,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)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

4), the assessee stated that the amount required to be considered in the hands of Shri Anand Singhal but for no reason later on an affidavit is furnished and the assessee has agreed to pay tax on the entries which were not related to him for the family dispute reasons. (iii) That no enquiry was made and no any material

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

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

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, 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

OAN INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.584/Jpr/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2023-24 Oan Industries Private The Income Tax Limited, V Officer, 134, Malhotra Nagar, Near S Ward-4(2), Jaipur. Vidyadhar Nagar Stadium, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302039. Pan: Aacco9587F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mukesh Khandelwal – Ca Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena- Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Addl.Commissioner Of Income Tax/Jcit(Appeals)-2, Pune U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; For A.Y.2023-24 Dated Oan Industries Private Limited [A]

249 8. CIT vs. Fortuna Foundation Engineers & Consultants (P.) Ltd., [2017] 81 taxmann.com 189 (Allahabad). 4 OAN Industries Private Limited [A] Submission of ld.DR : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and ld.Addl.CIT(A). 4. Basic Facts : We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The assessee filed Return of Income u/sec.139

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

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

SHRI KHATU SHYAM BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Depreciation 1,95,731 3 45,06,249 Interest Paid to 16 SHRI KHATU SHYAM BUILDERS VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR Partners 4 JDA Expenses 7,19,842 5 Salary Site 9,90,578 6 Site Office Expenses 4,599 7 Other Expenses 60,24,706 Total 1,24,41,930 It is also noted that during the course

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

249 (Amritsar) hold that provisions of sec. 153C of the Act were applicable in the present case for framing the assessment, if any, which excludes the application of sec. 147 of the Act, hence, notice issued under sec. 148 of the Act and assessment framed in furtherance thereto under sec. 147 read with section

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

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

249 (Amritsar) hold that provisions of sec. 153C of the Act were applicable in the present case for framing the assessment, if any, which excludes the application of sec. 147 of the Act, hence, notice issued under sec. 148 of the Act and assessment framed in furtherance thereto under sec. 147 read with section

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

depreciation wrongly claimed is subject to levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. DR further drawn our attention to the findings of the ld. CIT(A) recorded in the para 5.2(vii) at page 11 where in the relying the apex court decision he submitted that the explanation to section 271(1) raises a presumption