OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

4 Copy of Order u/d 154 dtd. 30.03.2015. 20 - 21 • Copy of Assessment order dtd. 20.012.2017. 5 22 - 32 6 Copy of Case Law of ITAT, Amritsar (Nakodar Co-operative 33 - 38 Sugar Mills Ltd. v/s ACIT). 7 Copy of Case Law of Supreme Court of India (M/s Volkart 39 - 43 Brother, Bombay v/s T.S. Balaram, I.T. Officer, Bombay

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

4. The undisputed fact in the captioned appeals is that there was a delay in depositing the employees’ contribution and the contribution has been deposited beyond the date stipulated under the relevantFund Act. 5. Though the quarrel is no more res integra, as it has been settledby the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

4. The undisputed fact in the captioned appeals is that there was a delay in depositing the employees’ contribution and the contribution has been deposited beyond the date stipulated under the relevantFund Act. 5. Though the quarrel is no more res integra, as it has been settledby the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

4. The undisputed fact in the captioned appeals is that there was a delay in depositing the employees’ contribution and the contribution has been deposited beyond the date stipulated under the relevantFund Act. 5. Though the quarrel is no more res integra, as it has been settledby the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate

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

SHRI BHANWAR LAL KHICHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section (2) of section 288 and furnish along with the return of income for the relevant assessment year, the report of such audit in the prescribed form14 duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed:] 15[Provided also that any amount of donation received by the fund or institution in terms

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

4) of section 115JA -Held, yes - Whether, therefore, capital gain arising to an assessee under section 50 on a depreciable

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

4) of section 115JA -Held, yes - Whether, therefore, capital gain arising to an assessee under section 50 on a depreciable

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be for the concerned assessment year. However, where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 has been made for relevant assessment year, no action can be taken under section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable

ITO, ALWAR vs. KUNDAN LAL BADSHAH, ALWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is disposed off with above directions

Section 45, the condition precedent is, (1) There should be a distribution of capital assets of firm; (2) Such distribution should result in transfer of a capital asset by firm in favour of the partner; and 15 ITO, Ward-1(1) Vs. Kundan Lal Badshah, Alwar (3) On account of the transfer there should be a profit or gain derived

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed to be deleted. Ground No.2 (AY 2017-18) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts & in law in confirming the trading addition

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed to be deleted. Ground No.2 (AY 2017-18) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts & in law in confirming the trading addition

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed to be deleted. Ground No.2 (AY 2017-18) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts & in law in confirming the trading addition

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed to be deleted. Ground No.2 (AY 2017-18) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts & in law in confirming the trading addition

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed to be deleted. Ground No.2 (AY 2017-18) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts & in law in confirming the trading addition

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed to be deleted. Ground No.2 (AY 2017-18) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts & in law in confirming the trading addition

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation is on a different footing vis-a-vis Unabsorbed Loss. 10.2 Section 115BBE is inserted by Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1.4.2013. Through Finance Act 2016, an amendment to sub-section 2 of Section 115BBE was carried out. The section reads as follows "After section 115BBD of the Income-tax Act, the following section shall be inserted with

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section. Similar provision was incorporated in sub-s. (4) of s. 115JA which is the predecessor of s. 115JB. But absent in s. 115J which preceded s. 115JA. This peculiar provision raised a controversy as to the legal implication of insertion of sub-s. (5) and sub-s. (4) in s. 115JB and s. 115JA, respectively. This legal issue