SUPREME BUILDESTATES PVT LTD,MADANGANJ- KISHANGARH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2 AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

30 provides deduction on repairs, municipal tax and insurance premiums. Section 31, provides deduction on repairs and insurance of plant, machinery and furniture. Section 32 provides for depreciation

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 154 as this is a debatable issue & previously always allowed 30% depreciation on such assets. (iii) As held in the case

ARJUN SINGH,KOTA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

30% instead of 15% depreciation allowable. Since, he assessee did not engage in the business of running of vehicles on hire, the assessee furnished d inaccurate particulars of its income by claiming excessive depreciation aggregating to Rs. 22,77,188/- on the above assets. Had the case has not been scrutinized u/s 143(3) proceedings an amount

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), being 30 percent of the rental income, amounting to Rs. 4,93,435 carmed by the assessee trust. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case Relief may please be granted by allowing such claim of the assessee trust. 6. In the facts and circumstances

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

30-31. In our view, even though the query letter from AO didn’t specifically mention about claim of additional depreciation and talks about depreciation claim, the queries raised by the AO were equally relevant for examining the claim of depreciation as well as additional depreciation and more so, when the same were originating from the same set of depreciation

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation, and MAT credit set-off. The ld. DR vide submission dated 14.07.2025 further submitted as under : I. Limitation Period Under Section 149(1)(b) is Fully Alive The assessee has contended that the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation. However, this contention is devoid of merit in view of the amended 29 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO provisions

RAJ KUMAR KANDOI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

30(a)(ii)];  current repairs to machinery, plant or furniture and insurance premium [section 31];  depreciation on building, machinery, plant

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

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)

section 10(230) has been withdrawn by the Id. CIT(E) and the present assessment under appeal has been made treating the appellant as AOP. Accordingly the judgements relied upon by the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the case. In view of the applicable facts of the case, deduction an account of the depreciation is not allowable

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

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 11,86,847/- 5,00,000/- Total 30,47,505/- 12,00,000/- 1.1. That, ld. CIT(A) further erred in confirming the action of ld. AO by relying upon unrealistic details. Thus the action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance made by ld. AO solely on account of non-furnishing of certain details, is against

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the ground no

depreciation, telephone/mobile exp. (Ground of Appeal No. 4), staff members birthday celebration (Ground of Appeal No. 5). 2. That in above regard it is respectfully submitted that any expenditure not specifically covered by sections 30

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been\ncomputed;]\n[(d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity)\nlocated outside India.]\n22[Explanation 3. For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the\nAssessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which

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

section 32(1)(iia) was claimed in that year equivalent to Rs. 19,09,306/-. Therefore, the balance 50% (i.e 10% of the cost of the Plant & Machinery acquired and installed and used for less than 180 days in the previous year 2010-11) of the allowable additional depreciation equal to Rs. 19,09,306/- is claimed in the previous

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE , JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. POONIA WINES, JAIPUR

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

Depreciation on vehicle claimed @ 30% 56,680 Thereafter in an action under section 147 of Income tax, both the sums

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

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

30,121/-.Since block of assets were transferred to the assessee, therefore, the insistence of the ld Assessing Officer for physical verification of the assets for the purposes of depreciation, in our view, was not warranted. In our view, once the assets are forming part and parcel of the block of assets, which were transferred to the assessee from Rajasthan

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

30,121/-.Since block of assets were transferred to the assessee, therefore, the insistence of the ld Assessing Officer for physical verification of the assets for the purposes of depreciation, in our view, was not warranted. In our view, once the assets are forming part and parcel of the block of assets, which were transferred to the assessee from Rajasthan