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 32 is not applicable on charitable trusts. 2. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) Ld. CIT upheld the decision of ld. AO stating that assessment made by ld. AO is conclusive. 3. SUBMISSION: 3.1. It is submitted that claim for depreciation is very much available to charitable trusts also. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements wherein

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)

Depreciation under section 32(1) is allowable in respect of both tangible and intangible assets which are 33 OM KOTHARI

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

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

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)

33 allows development rebate on machinery, plants and ships. Section 34 states conditions for depreciation and development rebate. Section 35 grants

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

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

33 1/3 % (33.33%) of such income, whichever is lower. (iii) In the case of income from machinery, plant or furniture let on hire:  repairs to building [section 30(a)(ii)];  current repairs to machinery, plant or furniture and insurance premium [section 31];  depreciation

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)

section 32(1) and, therefore, there is no question of allowing depreciation on said rights. Hon'ble ITAT has referred that facts are similar to the facts for AY 2015-16 and the issue has been decided in favour of assessee in the very same order. It is pertinent to mention here this issue for AY 2015-16 was decided

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

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

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

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

33(4) of the 1922 Act,\nanalogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the\nappellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in\nthe appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like\nSection 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income.\nAccordingly, the Apex Court held

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

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

33(4) of the 1922 Act,\nanalogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the\nappellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in\nthe appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like\nSection 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income.\nAccordingly, the Apex Court held

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

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

33(4) of the 1922 Act,\nanalogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the\nappellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in\nthe appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like\nSection 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income.\nAccordingly, the Apex Court held

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

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

33(4) of the 1922 Act,\nanalogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the\nappellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in\nthe appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like\nSection 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income.\nAccordingly, the Apex Court held

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

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

33(4) of the 1922 Act,\nanalogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the\nappellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in\nthe appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like\nSection 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income.\nAccordingly, the Apex Court held

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

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

33(4) of the 1922 Act,\nanalogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the\nappellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in\nthe appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like\nSection 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income.\nAccordingly, the Apex Court held

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

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

33(4) of the 1922 Act,\nanalogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the\nappellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in\nthe appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like\nSection 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income.\nAccordingly, the Apex Court held

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

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

33(4) of the 1922 Act,\nanalogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the\nappellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in\nthe appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like\nSection 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income.\nAccordingly, the Apex Court held