SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the\n assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to\nas the relevant assessment year) :\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3

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 and also in respect of claim for grant of deduction under Section 80 IA. A separate audit report in the prescribed form 10CCB in support of the claim for deduction under Section 80IA/80IB was also duly submitted. The assessee had also submitted reply pursuant to all queries made by AO during the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

3) of section 143 a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It is well known that a presumption can also be raised to the effect that in terms of clause (e) of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. If it be held

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 24(a) Rs.1,48,031 3. Depreciation under section 32 Rs.1,89,824 The condition precedent to the exercise

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

3) of the Act and another u/s. 154 of the Act on 20.12.2017 and 27.12.2017 respectively. The review of the order under the grab of section 154 of the Act is not possible and that too the ld. AO noted that the issue that he has raised in the order u/s. 154 needs verification and that order cannot be passed

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

3 relates to exclusion of profit on sale of investment and profit on sale of fixed assets while computing book profit under section 115JB. 12. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee submitted that the appellant while computing book profit under section 115JB excluded profit on sale of investment of Rs. 83,31,72,239/- and profit on sale

RAJESH KUMAR POONIA,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 145(3) of the Act and rejecting books of Accounts without pointing out any specific discrepancy in the books of accounts:- The A.O. has during the Course of hearing has rejected the Books of Accounts by recording the following reasons :- Rajesh Kumar Poonia vs. ACIT ‘the books so produced during the examination were prepared after survey proceedings, hence

RAJESH KUMAR POONIA,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 145(3) of the Act and rejecting books of Accounts without pointing out any specific discrepancy in the books of accounts:- The A.O. has during the Course of hearing has rejected the Books of Accounts by recording the following reasons :- Rajesh Kumar Poonia vs. ACIT ‘the books so produced during the examination were prepared after survey proceedings, hence

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

depreciation and also in respect of claim for grant of deduction under Section 80 IA. A separate audit report in the prescribed form 10CCB in support of the claim for deduction under Section 80IA/80IB was also duly submitted. The assessee had also submitted reply pursuant to all queries made by AO during the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

depreciation and also in respect of claim for grant of deduction under Section 80 IA. A separate audit report in the prescribed form 10CCB in support of the claim for deduction under Section 80IA/80IB was also duly submitted. The assessee had also submitted reply pursuant to all queries made by AO during the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3

RAWAT BAL VIDHA NIKETAN SAMITTEE,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

3) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961, ITNS-150 showing calculation of tax and\ninterest chargeable, if any, is attached herewith forming a part of this\norder.\"\n2.2 The ld. PCIT on examination of the details/ record available before him\nobserved that the assessment order passed on 21-04-2021 by the AO appears to be\nerroneous as well

M/S BALAJI CONSTRUCTION,AJMER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, AJMER

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation @ 50% was to be allowed. (vi) That the power under section 154 can be invoked only to correct an error & not to disturb a concluding finding given in scrutiny assessment made under 7 M/s Balaji Construction/ Dinesh Choudhary vs. ACIT section 143 (3

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)

section 143(3) of the 2 M/s Kanak Varindavan Resorts Ltd. vs. ITO Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] by Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur [ for short AO]. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) “1. has grossly

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)

3) of section 143 a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It is well known that a presumption can also be raised to the effect that in terms of clause (e) of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. If it be held

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

Section 145(3) and made 20% disallowance which comes to Rs.60,70,716/- being unverifiable expenses and thus made the addition in the hands of the assessee which in first appeal the ld. CIT(A) reduced the expenses to the extent of 10% and thus restrict addition at Rs.30,35,358/-. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation is on a different footing vis-a-vis Unabsorbed Loss. 10.2 Section 115BBE is inserted by Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1.4.2013. Through Finance Act 2016, an amendment to sub-section 2 of Section 115BBE was carried out. The section reads as follows "After section 115BBD of the Income-tax Act, the following section shall be inserted with

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

section 145(3) of the Act and estimated income of assessee firm by applying NP rate of 9.5% subject to depreciation

M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

section 145(3) of the Act and estimated income of assessee firm by applying NP rate of 9.5% subject to depreciation