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 allowed under section 31(l)(iia) is a one time benefit to encourage industrialization and the relevant provisions has been

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 for 3783500/- in addition to the cost of sale of wind power plant at Turpur (Karnataka) 30260000 (WDV 854400/-). Thus, omission resulted into under computation of income of Rs. 3,31,89,700/-. 17 M/s Compucom Software Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur (II) Further, it was also noticed that expenditure in relation to exempted income u/s 14A and rule

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

section 31];  depreciation on building, machinery, plant or furniture [section 32]; and  unabsorbed depreciation [section 32(2)]. (iv) Any other

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, JAIPUR

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

Section 147/148 of the Act. The assessee\ntherefore before us by preferring the present Cross-Objection to challenge\nthe directions and to raise other legal and factual grounds in support of the\ndeletion of the addition. Record reveals that Id. CIT(A) vide page 36 while\ndealing with the appeal of the assessee has issued direction

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

31,36,000/-; (2) boundary wall measuring 3500 sq. ft @ Rs. 300/- per sq. ft. amounting to Rs. 10,50,000/- and (3) building area 2000 sq. ft @ Rs. 600/- per sq. ft amounting to Rs. 12,00,000/-. The allocation of the value in percentage comes as under :- Land 95.94% Boundary 1.90% Building 2.17% -------- 100% The assessee has allocated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 147/148 of the Act, relying on the same judgment of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), CBDT Instruction No. 1/2023 (CLC 35-40), and the provisions of Section 150 of the Act. The assessee, while supporting the ultimate relief granted, is aggrieved by the directions given by the ld. CIT(A) in his order suggesting the AO initiate proceedings under Section 147/148

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 147/148 of the Act, relying on the same judgment of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), CBDT Instruction No. 1/2023 (CLC 35-40), and the provisions of Section 150 of the Act. The assessee, while supporting the ultimate relief granted, is aggrieved by the directions given by the ld. CIT(A) in his order suggesting the AO initiate proceedings under Section 147/148

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)

31-03-2011 with ITO Ward-7(2), Jaipur showing income at Rs.NIL. It is therefore respectfully requested before your good-self to kindly treat return filed in response to notice U/s 148 of the IT. Act, 1961." Since, the return of income filed by the assessee is beyond the time limit provided under section

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)

31 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR 4.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The AO during the assessment observed assessee has claimed depreciation on various fixed assets. Further AO alleges that assessee has taken purchase of assets as application of income in earlier years and claiming of depreciation tantamount

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

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

31 of 1922 Act.\"\n\nRespectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case\nof Murlidhar Bhaghubabu (supra) we conclude that Ld. CIT(A) has no\npower under the provision of law for giving any direction to AO for\nreopening of assessment. The appeal before Ld. CIT(A) is confined to the\nparticular assessment year which

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)

31-32[Chapter VI-A other than the provisions of section 80JJAA or section 80M]; (ii) without set off of any loss carried forward or depreciation

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)

31, provides deduction on repairs and insurance of plant, machinery and furniture. Section 32 provides for depreciation on tangible assets

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)

31,392 Add: Income Tax u/s 40(a)(ii) 1,30,00,000 Prov. For Capital Stores 7,65,008 Less: Excess Prov. For Doubtful Debt written back (15,85,10,128) Unabsorbed depreciation or business loss as per books whichever is lower (1,62,54,32,352) Book Profit as per section

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

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

section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto in respect of all three years under consideration.” Thus, the issue being common and identical, therefore, following the earlier decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2006-07 we do not find any error or illegality in the order

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

section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto in respect of all three years under consideration.” Thus, the issue being common and identical, therefore, following the earlier decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2006-07 we do not find any error or illegality in the order

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

section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto in respect of all three years under consideration.” Thus, the issue being common and identical, therefore, following the earlier decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2006-07 we do not find any error or illegality in the order

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

section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto in respect of all three years under consideration.” Thus, the issue being common and identical, therefore, following the earlier decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2006-07 we do not find any error or illegality in the order

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

section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto in respect of all three years under consideration.” Thus, the issue being common and identical, therefore, following the earlier decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2006-07 we do not find any error or illegality in the order

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)

depreciation on leasehold rights u/s 32(1)(ii) being business or commercial right acquired during the year under consideration. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, necessary direction may be given to the A.O. to allow the claim of Deduction u/s 80-IA and 80-IC while computing book profit u/s 115JB