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, 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

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

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

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

25,916/- in accordance with section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The\nadditional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.”\n61. On being consistent to the findings so recorded by the\ncoordinate bench on the issue in the year under consideration we\nnote that such intangible assets being "business or commercial\nright" is entitled to depreciation

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

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 ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

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

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

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

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,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

DYNAMIC POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation, if any, under any provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed. From the perusal of the above provision, it can be concluded that the company who has opted to file its return of income u/s 115BAA of the Act cannot take the deduction

INDIA COMMERCIAL SERVICES ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

depreciation\nclaimed on addition of assets.\n6 The assessee craves your indulgence to add amend or alter all or any grounds\nof appeal before or at the time of hearing.”\nThe assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of\nelectric works contracts from Government as well as private parties.\nBrief facts, as emerge from the record, are that

CHURU ZILA SAHKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD.,CHURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

depreciation @ 10% amounting to Rs. 4,58,960/- on addition of Rs. 45,89,604/- to building-put in use by the assessee co-operative bank in its day to day work.” 2. Ground No. 1 of the appeal is regarding disallowance of deduction U/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall