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)

depreciation @25% on such leasehold rights acquired of Rs. 14,93,25,916/- in accordance with section 32(1)(u) of the Act. The additional

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

depreciation is hereby allowed and the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed. 22. In Ground no. 4, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of commission of Rs.19,56,000/- paid to non residents u/s 40(a)(ia) of IT Act, 1961. 10 M/s Maharaja Shree

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 on the windmills purchased during the year has been examined by the AO as clearly discernable from the assessement order. Further, there is nothing on record that any fresh information or material has been received by the AO after completion of original assessment proceedings and in fact, in the reasons so recorded, the AO has referred to the information

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. In respect of additional depreciation of Rs 5,25

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)

25 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR d. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND INCOME TAX OFFICER VERSUS FR MULLERS CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS (2014) 363 ITR 230 (Kar) Interpretation of section 13(1)(d) of the Act - Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that when a part of income is held to be violative of the provisions

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.

depreciation @25% on such leasehold rights acquired of Rs. 14,93,25,916/- in accordance with section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The additional

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.

depreciation @25% on such leasehold rights acquired of Rs. 14,93,25,916/- in accordance with section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The additional

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation, which includes MAT credit also against undisclosed income u/s. 68 of the Act in foregoing paragraph 10 of this order, the ground no. 7 raised by the appellant is dismissed. 11 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO 12. In the result, the assessment order is upheld, and the appeal is dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with the finding recorded

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

25,004/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the assets were not physically allowable with the assessee; 2. Cancelling the penalty levied for disallowance of excess depreciation of Rs. 22,05,23,697/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made

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

25,004/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the assets were not physically allowable with the assessee; 2. Cancelling the penalty levied for disallowance of excess depreciation of Rs. 22,05,23,697/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made

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

25,004/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the assets were not physically allowable with the assessee; 2. Cancelling the penalty levied for disallowance of excess depreciation of Rs. 22,05,23,697/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made

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

25,004/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the assets were not physically allowable with the assessee; 2. Cancelling the penalty levied for disallowance of excess depreciation of Rs. 22,05,23,697/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made

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

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

25,004/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the assets were not physically allowable with the assessee; 2. Cancelling the penalty levied for disallowance of excess depreciation of Rs. 22,05,23,697/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made

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)

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act correctly allowed the deduction of bad debts written off. In letter filed objecting to reopening of assessment assessee also referred to CBDT Circular 12/2016 dt.30.05.2016 but AO in disposing the objections has not rebutted the contention of the assessee. Thus, there was no new material with the AO apart from what is already

RAJ KUMAR KANDOI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

depreciation [section 32(2)]. (iv) Any other expenditure (not being a capital expenditure) expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning of such income. 8 RAJ KUMAR KANDOI VS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR The case of the assessee is covered in point no. (iv). Hence the addition made by the AO deserves to be deleted. Clauses

M/S JINDAL ROADWAYS PVT. LTD.,NASIRABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Depreciation (Section 32) 7,25,747 CLOSING WDV 88,29,598 - That profit on sale of property amounting Rs.3326223/- was only

SHRI SANJAY JINDAL,NASIRABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Depreciation (Section 32) 7,25,747 CLOSING WDV 88,29,598 - That profit on sale of property amounting Rs.3326223/- was only

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)

25,21,500 qualified for deduction under Section 80G of the Act and therefore the assessee claimed of 50% of amount being Rs.1,12,60,750/- as deduction under Section 80G of the Act. The TPO/A.O. has disallowed substantial portion of donation under Section 80G of the Act on the ground that donations were not in the nature of voluntary

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

section 270A(9) of the Act the penalty for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income shall be a sum equal to 200% of the amount of tax payable on misreported income. 6. Aggrieved, from the said order of levy of penalty the assessee has filed an appeal before