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)

section 32(1) would mean double deduction, which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 43/[1992] 65 Taxman 420. The depreciation being notional expenditure will not fall under the expression 'actually applied' as held by the Apex Court in the case

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

38,172/- and disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets of Rs.42,49,575/- made in the original assessment order dt. 25.02.2015 were sustained in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act dt. 24.10.2018.’’ 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the Revenue, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld CIT(A) in which

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

38. It would therefore be wholly incorrect to read the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act as intending to amend the distribution of power or the categorization envisaged and prescribed by section 151. The additional time that the said statute provided to an authority cannot possibly be construed as altering or modifying the hierarchy

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

38(2) under which disallowance can be made refers to deduction available section 32(1) (ii) only for making the proportionate disallowance. Now section 32(1)(ii) is quoted below : " 32 (1) ( ii) In respect of depreciation

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been\ncomputed;]\n[(d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity)\nlocated outside India.]\n22[Explanation 3. For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the\nAssessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE , JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety.\n14\n7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety.\n14\n7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety.\n14\n7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety.\n14\n7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety.\n14\n7.\nUnder the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety.\n14\n7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety.\n14\n7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety.\n7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety.\n14\n7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing various expenditure incurred by Appellant Trust in entirety.\n\n14\n7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing

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

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

38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based on the MCA master data submitted that the company has\nfiled its balance sheet with ROC up to 31/03/2020 & last AGM of company\nwas held on 24/12/2020. The share is also traded on BSE. Based on that\nset of facts and decision relied upon he supported his claim on the merits