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

26,76,850/-. In the draft assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C dated 14.3.2014, the Assessing Officer has determined the total income at Rs.7,84,12,208/- as there was a disallowance under Section 32 (1) (iia) of Rs.3,53,65,893/- being additional depreciation

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

26,064 - should not be subtracted from the net profit. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income to the tune of Rs. 3,36,18,343/- ( Rs. 3,31,89,700/- + Rs. 4,28,643/-) has escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 for the Asstt

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

26 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO Income escaped > ₹50 lakhs, Escapement represented in form of loan. 3. Section 151 Compliance - Proper Sanction Obtained The fresh notice issued on 28.07.2022 was issued within prescribed limitation and with approval of PCIT, as per amended Section 151. The assessee's claim that sanction must be from "PCCIT/CCIT" is misconceived. Ashish Agarwal

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

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Section. 32 is not applicable. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as above discussion, claim of depreciation made by the assessee at Rs.1,89,824/- is hereby disallowed." The assessment of the A.O. found to be conclusive and no submission/explanation has been furnished by the appellate during the appellate proceedings. 10. GROUND No. 7:- In this

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)

depreciation as on 31.03.2015 is to the extent of Rs.2034.40 crore. Providing financial help by the Government to these companies also cannot be a reason for not allowing the claim of bad debt. 5. The claim of bad debts is allowable u/s 36(1)(vii) which reads as under:- “subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount

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)

Section 115JB(5) and as held in Best Trading And Agencies Ltd. -vs- DCIT (IT'A No. 191/2011 dated 26-08-2020)(Karn. HC), gain or loss as per the provisions of Income Tax Act (Le. after indexation) on such assets is to be considered while computing book profit u/s 115JB. The aforesaid claim has duly been made

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 43(6) as per rates prescribed. Ld.AO completed the assessment for AY 2013-14 vide orders dt. 28.03.2016 by re-computing depreciation by taking WDV as on 01.04.2012 as Actual Cost. Assessee preferred appeal against the disallowance so made by ld.AO, which was decided by ld. CIT(A)-2, Jaipur, vide order dated 18.9.2017, which was served upon assessee

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 43(6) as per rates prescribed. Ld.AO completed the assessment for AY 2013-14 vide orders dt. 28.03.2016 by re-computing depreciation by taking WDV as on 01.04.2012 as Actual Cost. Assessee preferred appeal against the disallowance so made by ld.AO, which was decided by ld. CIT(A)-2, Jaipur, vide order dated 18.9.2017, which was served upon assessee

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

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

HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

26). From the said sale deed, it was evident that the property was purchased in the year 1972. Accordingly, the assessee firm was eligible for indexation from FY 1981-82 in term of the provisions of section 55(2)(b). The reference of 31.03.2005 in your notice is misplaced. During assessment proceeding vide submission dated 3 October

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

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

26,237.23 While computing total income for A.Y. 2014-15 as per provisions of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee company added back the depreciation

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

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

26,237.23 While computing total income for A.Y. 2014-15 as per provisions of Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee company added back the depreciation

RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

section 37 but was in respect to allowing the depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The submission of the Ld. A/R for the Assessee is that the value of wasting asset will depreciate with the extraction of mineral, in our view, is preposterous. In our view, with passage of guidelines for protecting the environment, now it is the duty

RAM KHILARI MEENA,DAUSA vs. ITO, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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)." 26

ACIT, ALWAR vs. M/S PRIME CHEM OIL LTD.,, ALWAR

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)." 26

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

26. In this context, the relevant extract of rule 8D of Income Tax Rule is reproduced herein below for your kind perusal 8D. (1) Where the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of the assessee of a previous year, is not satisfied with (a) the correctness of the claim of expenditure made by the assessee; or (b) the claim

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

26,747/- should be allowed. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota erred in disallowing interest of Rs. 35,92,45,372/- in respect of borrowed funds alleged to be taken for investment made in the subsidiaries and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kota further erred in partially confirming the disallowance of interest