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, and MAT credit set-off. The ld. DR vide submission dated 14.07.2025 further submitted as under : I. Limitation Period Under Section 149(1)(b) is Fully Alive The assessee has contended that the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation. However, this contention is devoid of merit in view of the amended 29 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO provisions

M/S. SUMS EXIM PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 41(1) of the Act. The Bench feels that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,55,895/- to the total income of the assessee made by the AO treating certain current liabilities as fictitious. Thus Ground No. 3 of the assessee is allowed. 5.1 Apropos Ground No. 4 of the assessee, brief facts

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

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 does not amount to revaluation of asset. It is only a change in the allocation of the cost of asset to its useful life. Therefore, this amount cannot be added in computing the book profit. As far as not allowing deduction of Rs.15,85,10,128/- on account of provision for bad & doubtful debt written back is concerned

SREE HARI AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,ADM. OFF. AT ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

section 41(1) which particularly deals with the remission of trading liability would not attract chargeability u/s. 41(1) of the Act on waiver of such loan. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. D/R argued that assessee has not established that the loans which have been waived off have been utilized in acquisition of the fixed asset

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 leasehold rights on land u/s 32(1)(ii). That the department is in further appeal against the composite order of Hon'ble ITAT in appeal no. 496 to 498 & 500/JP/2023 dated 21.02.2024 passed for A.Y. 2015-16 to 2018-19 where the Hon'ble ITAT has allowed the appeal of the assessee on this ground. The decision

M/S GLAMOUR ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-1, JAIPUR

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

Section 41(1) of the Act. It was accordingly, submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly sustained the disallowances and there is no infirmity in the said order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and hence, the same may be confirmed. 14. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that

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

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. SMT. ABDA BAI, KOTA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

41,50,319]. 6. As the assessee earned claimed Capital Gain, before claiming exemption under Section 54B and 54F, of Rs. 2,02,84,034, total benefit 4 ACIT vs. Smt. Abda Bai under both the sections [i.e. 54B and 54F] could not be more than such amount i.e. Rs. 2,02,84,034. 7. Attention is also drawn towards

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

depreciation where one of the cardinal rule is the property should be used for purposes of business. A reference can be drawn to observations of the Coordinate Bench in case of 5ubhlakshmi Vanijya (P.) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income-tax·/, Kolkata, reported in 60 taxmann.com 60 (Kolkata- Trib.) wherein it was held under: "It is imperative for the Assessing Officer

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

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

Section 147/148 of the Act. The assessee\ntherefore before us by preferring the present Cross-Objection to challenge\nthe directions and to raise other legal and factual grounds in support of the\ndeletion of the addition. Record reveals that Id. CIT(A) vide page 36 while\ndealing with the appeal of the assessee has issued direction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

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

Section 153A/153C\nwere struck down due to absence of incriminating material. This administrative\ninstructions are not binding on quasi-judicial authorities like the CIT(A). It is a\nsettled principle of law, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UCO Bank v.\nCIT [(1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC)] (CLC 41-49), that CBDT circulars or instructions\ncannot override

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

41 ITA 688/JP/2019_ M/s Wholesale Cloth Merchant Association Vs Pr.CIT The memorandum explaining the relevant provisions of the Finance Bill, 2017 reads as under: "as per the existing provisions of said section, the entities registered under section 12AA are required to file return of income under sub- section (4A) of section 139, if the total income without giving effect

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

41,31,841/-. The ld. DR has relied upon the findings of the AO, where the ld. DR is in opinion of the AO that the assessee which is not allowable for exempt u/s 11 and 12. The ld. Dr relied upon the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act where that in the last limb of the definition

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

41,31,841/-. The ld. DR has relied upon the findings of the AO, where the ld. DR is in opinion of the AO that the assessee which is not allowable for exempt u/s 11 and 12. The ld. Dr relied upon the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act where that in the last limb of the definition

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

41,31,841/-. The ld. DR has relied upon the findings of the AO, where the ld. DR is in opinion of the AO that the assessee which is not allowable for exempt u/s 11 and 12. The ld. Dr relied upon the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act where that in the last limb of the definition

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

41,31,841/-. The ld. DR has relied upon the findings of the AO, where the ld. DR is in opinion of the AO that the assessee which is not allowable for exempt u/s 11 and 12. The ld. Dr relied upon the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act where that in the last limb of the definition

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

41,31,841/-. The ld. DR has relied upon the findings of the AO, where the ld. DR is in opinion of the AO that the assessee which is not allowable for exempt u/s 11 and 12. The ld. Dr relied upon the provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act where that in the last limb of the definition