RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalrashleela Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., C-5, Krishna Balram, Calgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017. Pan No.: Aadcr2594J ...... Appellant Vs.

depreciation. (5) Where, in a scheme of amalgamation, the amalgamating company sells or otherwise transfers to the amalgamated company (being an Indian company) any asset representing expenditure of a capital nature on scientific research, — (i) the amalgamating company shall not be allowed the deduction under clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (2); and (ii) the provisions of this

NIMBUS PIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

256 70,214 15-04-2018 87,470 15-04-2019 9 Fund ES! 11,402 3,817 15-05-2018

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

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)

2-7-2005 on which date the assessment for the A.Y. 2001-02 was not pending. Therefore, in view of the non- obstinate clause with which sub section (1) of section 153A opens, the A.O. has no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act in respect of those six assessment years which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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,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

SHRI SALASAR BALAJI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

256 ITR 536\n(Raj.) has held that \"There is no provision for permitting the cross examination of the persons whose\nstatement were recorded during survey.\"\n\n4.5 In the case of Mahendra N. Chatterjee V/s Collector of Central Excise (1977) Tax LR 1754\n(Cal.) the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that \"Right to cross examination

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak credit

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak credit

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak credit

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak credit

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak credit

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]

256 ITR 0688) 6. CIT vs. AKS Alloys (P.) Ltd. [2012] (Mad.) 7. CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals Pvt. Ltd., [2009] 317 ITR 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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

256), the assessee has filed details of additions to fixed assets at its different units stating Description, Date of Capitalisation and amount only. It is difficult to understand that without the rate of depreciation for individual items, how the correctness of claim of depreciation could be verified. It goes without saying that for allowing depreciation, it is important that asset

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, AJMER vs. SHRI BHAGCHAND JAIN, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

256 ITR 243 (Raj). It was further submitted by the ld. AR that in case any addition was required to be made or confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) then in that eventuality, a fair estimation was required to be made and while making the said fair estimation, past history of the assessee was the best guide. It was further

SHRI MOHAN LAL BARGOTI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1462/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 Shri Mohan Lal Bargoti, Cuke A.C.I.T. Vs. 1-A-1, 1-A-2, Subhash Colony, Circle-4, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abzpb 7893 C Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 14/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2013-14. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:

2. The hearing of the appeal and C.O. were concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and enjoying income from engineering job work. Return was filed on 12/09/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 30,23,330/-. The A.O. completed