INTEGRAL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us. In This Appeal, The Assessee Bank Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

section 36(viia) of the Act; 2. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in: a) reducing the NPA reserve u/s 36(1)(viia) by Rs. 1,79,323/-; b) reducing the special reserve u/s 36(1)(viii) by Rs. 4,78,193; c) not directing the Assessing Officer to recalculate the deduction u/s 36(1)(viia)/ 36

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

Depreciation Interest 90 & 93 6 2004-05 (76,57,476) 61,95,251/- 9,011/- 1,39,87,305/- 63,38,840/- 97 & 14 2005-06 (69,29,882) 72,84,362/- 102 26,887/- 1,43,33,911/- 74,30,916/- 106 18 2006-07 (72,95,095) 83,55,823/- &109 11,247/- 1

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

Depreciation Interest 90 & 93 6 2004-05 (76,57,476) 61,95,251/- 9,011/- 1,39,87,305/- 63,38,840/- 97 & 14 2005-06 (69,29,882) 72,84,362/- 102 26,887/- 1,43,33,911/- 74,30,916/- 106 18 2006-07 (72,95,095) 83,55,823/- &109 11,247/- 1

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

Depreciation Interest 90 & 93 6 2004-05 (76,57,476) 61,95,251/- 9,011/- 1,39,87,305/- 63,38,840/- 97 & 14 2005-06 (69,29,882) 72,84,362/- 102 26,887/- 1,43,33,911/- 74,30,916/- 106 18 2006-07 (72,95,095) 83,55,823/- &109 11,247/- 1

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

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

36(1)(viia) could not be said to have been made in rectification of an error apparent in assessment order—Court had no reason to interfere with impugned order and, therefore, did not find that any substantial question of law was involved in this case—Application and appeal dismissed 2.4 In the case of Harbans Lal Malhotra & Sons

RAMESHWARAM STRONG GLASS (P.) LTD.,AJMER vs. ITO, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

depreciation; (iv) any amount representing provision for taxation, other than amount of tax paid as deduction or collection at source or as advance tax payment as reduced by the amount of tax claimed as refund under the Income-tax Act, to the extent of the excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with