COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-VI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

40% 600000 commissioning Here comes the difference of Rs. 1,12,500/- in form of excess depreciation claimed on windmill and even amount is being added back to the returned income of the assessee. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income.” 6 M/s Compucom Software Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

Section 40(a)(i) of the Act cannot be invoked for making the disallowance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance so made by the AO U/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is hereby deleted and ground of appeal is allowed. 18. In ground of appeal No. 2, the asseesse has challenged the action of ld.CIT

M/S NATIONAL SANITATION,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

40 lacs, therefore, the provisions of section 44AD are not applicable in the case of the assessee. The estimation of income was the only option that left with the assessee as well as with the AO in the absence of books of accounts as well as the supporting evidence. The assessee has applied net profit rate of 8% by taking

JASORIA PRODUCTS,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 40(b) and ignoring the fact that the interest received from partners was in the due course of business and is always added in the gross profit for computing book profit for the ITA 733/JP/2015_ 2 M/s Jasoria Products Vs ITO purpose of calculation of amount allowable u/s 40(b). Thus, the addition of Rs. 3,22,524/- deserves

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

depreciation of Rs.2,02,91,277/- claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) of IT Act, 1961 M/s Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of commission of Rs.19,56,000/- paid to non residents u/s 40(a)(ia) of IT Act, 1961. 2. In ground

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)

40(a)(ii) effected retrospectively, it is held that Education Cess is not an allowable Expense and the ground raised by the assesse is not tenable and the same is dismissed. Ground No. 3 relates to exclusion of profit on sale of investment and profit on sale of fixed assets while computing book profit under section 115JB. 12. Before

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.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

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.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Section 32(1), the AO should have allowed depreciation of Rs. 40,67,374/, is not found to be acceptable

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

40(a)(ii). Therefore, we see no merits in the ground No. 3 raised by assessee and therefore, the same is dismissed. 21. Ground No. 4 relates to exclusion of deduction under section 80IA in computing Book Profit under section 115JB of the Act. 22. Brief facts of this case that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IA on various

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

40(a)(ii). Therefore, we see no merits in the ground No. 3 raised by assessee and therefore, the same is dismissed. 21. Ground No. 4 relates to exclusion of deduction under section 80IA in computing Book Profit under section 115JB of the Act. 22. Brief facts of this case that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IA on various

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

40(a)(ii).\nTherefore, we see no merits in the ground No. 3 raised by \nassessee and therefore, the same is dismissed.\n21. Ground No. 4 relates to exclusion of deduction under \nsection 80IA in computing Book Profit under section 115JB of \nthe Act.\n22. Brief facts of this case that the assessee has claimed \ndeduction u/s. 80IA on various

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

40(a)(ii). ITA Nos. 489 to 492/JP/2023 ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. 19 Therefore, we see no merits in the ground No. 3 raised by assessee and therefore, the same is dismissed. 21. Ground No. 4 relates to exclusion of deduction under section 80IA in computing Book Profit under section 115JB of the Act. 22. Brief facts of this

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereinafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." (Emphasis supplied) What is clear from the above provision is that once assessment is reopened for bringing to tax any income that escaped assessment in terms

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation is entitled to be set off against income of Rs. 1,37,00,000/- added u/s. 68 and only balance of Rs. 88,40,720/- liable to be taxed u/s 115BBE. The appellant further contented that Amendment to section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RDB CARS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 40a(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the said sums due: ignorance. X. Copy of interest paid Rs.42.40.572/-1 to KMPL by assessee:- Copy enclosed, the AR of the assessee also accepted that the assessee has paid interest of Rs.42,40,572/- to Kotak Mahindra Prime Limited towards interest during the financial year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

depreciation 80% is allowable only on wind mill plant not on the other electrical fitting and building etc. (ii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 27,94,439/- made on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) without appreciating the fact