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

section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year.” 14. In the instant case, what is relevant is whether the income has escaped assessment by reason of failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year

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)

27,67,977.00 by disallowing depreciation, stating that this is out of corpus of the Trust. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not allowing the 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

27 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO The CIT(A) rightly upheld the AO's addition under Section 68 for the following reasons: The companies from which the assessee claimed to have received unsecured loans failed the test of creditworthiness and genuineness. Assessee failed to discharge its initial burden under Section 68 despite repeated opportunities. The documents furnished

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

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

27,86,306/- (i.e. ½ of 80% + ½ of 20%=50%). The assessee was allowed additional depreciation of Rs.5,37,14,642/- on new machinery. On going through the provisions of clause (iia) of sub-section

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

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

27,170/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has failed to prove that prior period expenses were actually paid in the relevant financial year; 4. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter, delete or modify the above ground of appeal before

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

27,170/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has failed to prove that prior period expenses were actually paid in the relevant financial year; 4. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter, delete or modify the above ground of appeal before

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

27,170/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has failed to prove that prior period expenses were actually paid in the relevant financial year; 4. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter, delete or modify the above ground of appeal before

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

27,170/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has failed to prove that prior period expenses were actually paid in the relevant financial year; 4. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter, delete or modify the above ground of appeal before

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

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

27,170/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has failed to prove that prior period expenses were actually paid in the relevant financial year; 4. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter, delete or modify the above ground of appeal before

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)

27 of the paper book filed. Therefore, based on the decision relied upon in the written submission the disallowance is required to be vacated. As regards the second ground of appeal ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that Health and Education cess is not included in the Explanation 1 & 2 to section 115JB(2) of the Act and therefore

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

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

section 55(2)(b). The reference of 31.03.2005 in your notice is misplaced. During assessment proceeding vide submission dated 3 October, 2018 (P.B.: 6 to 8), it was submitted that the value appearing in the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2005 (P.B. : 46 to 48) was Rs. 1,57,730/- wherein one year depreciation amounting to Rs 17,525/- was reduced

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)." 27

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)." 27

M/S KISHANGARH HI TECH TEXTILE PARK LTD.,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TECH), AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 43(1) read with explanation 10 thereto. 8. Regarding the rate of depreciation applied by the Assessing officer, our reference was drawn to the various assets which has been purchased/installed in respect of wind power project and the relevant findings of the Assessing officer in the assessment order which reads as under:- “1. On verification of the details

M/S KISHANGARH HI TECH TEXTILE PARK LTD.,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TECH), AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 43(1) read with explanation 10 thereto. 8. Regarding the rate of depreciation applied by the Assessing officer, our reference was drawn to the various assets which has been purchased/installed in respect of wind power project and the relevant findings of the Assessing officer in the assessment order which reads as under:- “1. On verification of the details