M/S GIE JEWELS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

depreciation allowable in accordance with the provisions of section 32 as if no deduction under section 35AD was allowed in respect of the assets on which the deduction under that section is claimed.] (3) Every person to whom this section applies shall obtain a report, in such form as may be prescribed30, from an accountant, certifying that the adjusted total

MODERN INSULATORS LIMITED,ABU ROAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CIRCLE 6 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

depreciation of M/s Modern Terry Towels Ltd amounting to Rs.11,97,19,742/- is illegal & unjustified. 4 That the learned CIT-'A' has erred in holding that in case, considering the facts and circumstance of the present case, there is no compliance of the principles held in the referred judgement of the Hon 'ble Delhi High Court and the circulars

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Depreciation has been claimed in the audited books of accounts. The bench noted that the assessee is corporate entity. Even if the expenditure are incurred for the benefit of the employee or that of the other company the same can be treated as perquisites but the expenditure thereby incurred cannot be disallowed and that too in part considered

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

260A of the Act. The Court’s mandate, thus, is to consider whether or not a substantial question of law arises for consideration. 12.1 As noted above, the impugned order has not been passed on merits. 13. The Tribunal has applied the plain provisions of the 2019 Circular, based on which, it has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent/assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

260A of the Act. The\nappeal had been admitted on two substantial questions relating to whether an\naddition of undisclosed income may be made on the basis of loose sheets found\nin the search, particularly when the assessee therein had accepted, in his sworn\nstatement, that the information contained in the sheets reflected his undisclosed\nincome. In that case

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereinafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." (Emphasis supplied) What is clear from the above provision is that once assessment is reopened for bringing to tax any income that escaped assessment in terms

INDIAN MEDICAL TRUST,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, JAIPUR

depreciation of Rs.16,66,58,482, educational expenses of Rs.2,64,16,748/- incurred on practical training to the students of BJMC (Bachelor degree in journalism and mass communication) and MJMC (Master degree in journalism and mass communication) though allowed in earlier years and deduction under section 11(1)(a) of Rs.3,49,10,237/- (up to 15% of gross

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Depreciation 2,32,414 2,32,414 Total Expenses 56,88,968 56,88,968 Adjusted Profit 4,09,19,882 2,52,91,655 M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. before tax (A) Profit before tax 90,48,708 90,48,708 as reported (B) Adjustment (A-B) 3,18,71,174 1,62,42,947 Actual Price

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Depreciation 2,32,414 2,32,414 Total Expenses 56,88,968 56,88,968 Adjusted Profit 4,09,19,882 2,52,91,655 M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. before tax (A) Profit before tax 90,48,708 90,48,708 as reported (B) Adjustment (A-B) 3,18,71,174 1,62,42,947 Actual Price