OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT (CPC) BANGALORE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 534 & 536/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2018-19 Om Infra Limited Om Tower, M. I. Road Church Road, Rajasthan cuke Vs. ADIT (CPC), Bangalore, Bengaluru, Karnataka LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACO 8245 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri B. V. Maheshwari (F.C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. A. S. Nehra

36(1)(va) of the Act unless the employer credits such contribution to the employees account in the relevant fund within the due date applicable for that relevant fund. (v) On this issue the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering all the divergent decision of various High Courts has given a judgement in the case of Commissioner of Income

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT (CPC) BANGALORE, BENGALURU KARNATAKA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 534 & 536/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2018-19 Om Infra Limited Om Tower, M. I. Road Church Road, Rajasthan cuke Vs. ADIT (CPC), Bangalore, Bengaluru, Karnataka LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACO 8245 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri B. V. Maheshwari (F.C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. A. S. Nehra

36(1)(va) of the Act unless the employer credits such contribution to the employees account in the relevant fund within the due date applicable for that relevant fund. (v) On this issue the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering all the divergent decision of various High Courts has given a judgement in the case of Commissioner of Income

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 36(1)(vii) thus the resultant addition deserves to be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not allowing set off of the brought forward unabsorbed business loss and unabsorbed depreciation

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 36(1)(vii) thus the resultant addition deserves to be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not allowing set off of the brought forward unabsorbed business loss and unabsorbed depreciation

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 36(1)(vii) thus the resultant addition deserves to be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in not allowing set off of the brought forward unabsorbed business loss and unabsorbed depreciation

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made

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

vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

section 14A(1), deduction of that expenditure is not to be allowed which has been incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. Axiomatically, it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is includible in total income that

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 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 in view of the fact that identical issue has already been

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

vii) Copy of Contract Note issued by\nCreative Financial Services Pvt. Ltd Page No.25 to 26 (viii) Copy of bills issued by\nB. Lodha Securities Ltd Page No.27 (ix) Copy of Contract Note issued by Tushar\n(India) Pvt Ltd Page No.28 (x) Copy of bills issued by B. Lodha Securities Ltd\nPage No.29 to 33 (Xi) Copy of Contract

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)

depreciation and development rebate. Section 35 grants deduction on expenditure for scientific research and knowledge extension in natural and applied sciences under agriculture, animal husbandry and fisheries. Payment to approved universities/ 15 Supreme Buildestates Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT research institutions or company also qualifies for deduction. In-house R&D is eligible for deduction, under this section. Section 35CCD provides

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation was examined u/s 143(3), thus the\naction of ld PCIT (Admin) in raising doubts to the settled issue is an attempt to\nunsettle the past history and such direction deserves to be struck down.\n5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. PCIT (Admin) has\ngrossly erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

VII. While filing Return of Income, assessee company, computed tax under normal provision as well as under MAT provisions. The assessee company, for normal provisions, added the said write off to its income and, accordingly, computed tax [PB 2-3]. However, while calculating book profits as per MAT provision, the assessee company did not make any adjustment for the said

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 on CPP was allowed by the AO while framing the assessment under M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Section 143(3) after conscious consideration of the material on record. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the formation of the belief regarding the escapement of the assessment by the AO is based

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 on CPP was allowed by the AO while framing the assessment under M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Section 143(3) after conscious consideration of the material on record. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the formation of the belief regarding the escapement of the assessment by the AO is based

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

vii) LATE SHRI BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY vs. DEPUTY\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nIN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'A'\nBHAVNESH SAINI, JM & B.R.R KUMAR, AM.\nITA.Nos., 434, 435, 436, 437, 438 & 439/Del./2017\n91 ITR (Trib) 0565 (Delhi), (2021) 212 TTJ 0357 (Del), (2021)\n203 DTR (Trib) 0249 (Del)(Trib)\nAfter considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

vii. The concerned authority vide order dated 08-09-2021 transferred jurisdiction from Kolkata to Ajmer.(PB Page 66-68 & 69-71) by rejecting assessee company objections. viii. The concerned authority (Ld. PCIT, Kolkata), despite repeated requests, did not provided any information or documents or warrant suggesting that assessee company case is related with the search proceedings conducted at “Saini