M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation disallowed on catalyst. 10. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 461 & 575/JP/2015 for the A.Y. 2011-12 at page 12 para 21 as under :- “21. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties, perused the material available on the record and the earlier

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

350/-. The\nassessee has knowingly, intentionally and fraudulently claimed this wrong\ndeduction year after year and thus the conduct of the assessee is abnormal.\nConsidering this fact, the penalty is levied at 200% as against the minimum\npenalty of 100%. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs. 2,16,520/- is hereby imposed\nupon the assessee under section

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

350/-. The\nassessee has knowingly, intentionally and fraudulently claimed this wrong\ndeduction year after year and thus the conduct of the assessee is abnormal.\nConsidering this fact, the penalty is levied at 200% as against the minimum\npenalty of 100%. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs. 2,16,520/- is hereby imposed\nupon the assessee under section

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

350/-. The\nassessee has knowingly, intentionally and fraudulently claimed this wrong\ndeduction year after year and thus the conduct of the assessee is abnormal.\nConsidering this fact, the penalty is levied at 200% as against the minimum\npenalty of 100%. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs. 2,16,520/- is hereby imposed\nupon the assessee under section

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

350/-. The\nassessee has knowingly, intentionally and fraudulently claimed this wrong\ndeduction year after year and thus the conduct of the assessee is abnormal.\nConsidering this fact, the penalty is levied at 200% as against the minimum\npenalty of 100%. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs. 2,16,520/- is hereby imposed\nupon the assessee under section

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

350/-. The\nassessee has knowingly, intentionally and fraudulently claimed this wrong\ndeduction year after year and thus the conduct of the assessee is abnormal.\nConsidering this fact, the penalty is levied at 200% as against the minimum\npenalty of 100%. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs. 2,16,520/- is hereby imposed\nupon the assessee under section

ACIT, AJMER vs. ABHISHEK KUMAWAT, KISHANGARH

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

350 (Raj.). In that case, even though the decision were rendered in the context of section 68, to our mind the same is equally relevant for facts under consideration even though the assessee has not maintained books of accounts and the AO has not invoked section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SMT. KUSUM DEVI VIJAYVARGIYA, KISHANGARH

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

350 (Raj.). In that case, even though the decision were rendered in the context of section 68, to our mind the same is equally relevant for facts under consideration even though the assessee has not maintained books of accounts and the AO has not invoked section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SMT. SUDARSHNA SOMANI, KISHANGARH

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

350 (Raj.). In that case, even though the decision were rendered in the context of section 68, to our mind the same is equally relevant for facts under consideration even though the assessee has not maintained books of accounts and the AO has not invoked section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SMT. SUDARSHNA SOMANI, KISHANGARH

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

350 (Raj.). In that case, even though the decision were rendered in the context of section 68, to our mind the same is equally relevant for facts under consideration even though the assessee has not maintained books of accounts and the AO has not invoked section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SHRI MANISH KUMAR SINGHAL, KISHANGARH

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

350 (Raj.). In that case, even though the decision were rendered in the context of section 68, to our mind the same is equally relevant for facts under consideration even though the assessee has not maintained books of accounts and the AO has not invoked section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed

ACIT, AJMER vs. ABHISHEK KUMAWAT, KISHANGARH

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

350 (Raj.). In that case, even though the decision were rendered in the context of section 68, to our mind the same is equally relevant for facts under consideration even though the assessee has not maintained books of accounts and the AO has not invoked section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMENR vs. SMT. SUDARSHNA SOMANI, KISHANGARH

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

350 (Raj.). In that case, even though the decision were rendered in the context of section 68, to our mind the same is equally relevant for facts under consideration even though the assessee has not maintained books of accounts and the AO has not invoked section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed

ACIT, AJMER vs. PRAKASH CHAND VIJAYVARGIYA, KISHANGARH

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

350 (Raj.). In that case, even though the decision were rendered in the context of section 68, to our mind the same is equally relevant for facts under consideration even though the assessee has not maintained books of accounts and the AO has not invoked section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed

ACIT, AJMER vs. PRAKASH CHAND VIJAYVARGIYA, KISHANGARH

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

350 (Raj.). In that case, even though the decision were rendered in the context of section 68, to our mind the same is equally relevant for facts under consideration even though the assessee has not maintained books of accounts and the AO has not invoked section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER vs. SHRI MANISH KUMAR SINGHAL, KISHANGARH

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

350 (Raj.). In that case, even though the decision were rendered in the context of section 68, to our mind the same is equally relevant for facts under consideration even though the assessee has not maintained books of accounts and the AO has not invoked section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMENR, AJMER vs. SHRI MANISH KUMAR SINGHAL, KISHANGARH

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

350 (Raj.). In that case, even though the decision were rendered in the context of section 68, to our mind the same is equally relevant for facts under consideration even though the assessee has not maintained books of accounts and the AO has not invoked section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER vs. SHRI MANISH KUMAR SINGHAL, KISHANGARH

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

350 (Raj.). In that case, even though the decision were rendered in the context of section 68, to our mind the same is equally relevant for facts under consideration even though the assessee has not maintained books of accounts and the AO has not invoked section 68 specifically in the instant case. The Hon’ble High Court has observed