SHANTI LAL BHANDARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

section 41(1)(a) is hereby deleted. The ground no. 3 is accordingly allowed in favour of the assessee.” 8.1 After considering the facts of the case and the case laws relied upon, I am of the view that the assessee has not written of the amount in its books of account. The assessee has also not denied the payment

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciable assets which in the present case is the superstructure erected on the site [see section 41(2) of the Income

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 32 is not applicable on charitable trusts. 2. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) Ld. CIT upheld the decision of ld. AO stating that assessment made by ld. AO is conclusive. 3. SUBMISSION: 3.1. It is submitted that claim for depreciation is very much available to charitable trusts also. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements wherein

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

M/S MOHD. CONST. CO.,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the ground no

41 of the Income Tax Act and has no bearing on the computation of income and has to be considered separately. 3. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in estimating the Net Profit rate @ 11% on contract receipts ( subject to depreciation only) and further erred in separately considering the sales

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto. Thereafter, after taking into consideration the submission and explanation of the assessee, though not agreeing with it, the AO want ahead and recalculated the depreciation claim as made by the assessee in its return of income. It is thus seen that all material facts and figures are duly disclosed in the return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto. Thereafter, after taking into consideration the submission and explanation of the assessee, though not agreeing with it, the AO want ahead and recalculated the depreciation claim as made by the assessee in its return of income. It is thus seen that all material facts and figures are duly disclosed in the return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto. Thereafter, after taking into consideration the submission and explanation of the assessee, though not agreeing with it, the AO want ahead and recalculated the depreciation claim as made by the assessee in its return of income. It is thus seen that all material facts and figures are duly disclosed in the return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto. Thereafter, after taking into consideration the submission and explanation of the assessee, though not agreeing with it, the AO want ahead and recalculated the depreciation claim as made by the assessee in its return of income. It is thus seen that all material facts and figures are duly disclosed in the return

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto. Thereafter, after taking into consideration the submission and explanation of the assessee, though not agreeing with it, the AO want ahead and recalculated the depreciation claim as made by the assessee in its return of income. It is thus seen that all material facts and figures are duly disclosed in the return

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

ACIT, KOTA vs. SHIV AGREVO LTD., BARAN

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Sections 32,32A, 33 and 41 which deal with concepts like depreciation. 3. The provisions under section 36(1)(iii) make

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

depreciation on securities on global method of Rs. 7,21,74,918/-. 3.1 Further the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 111,81,75,752/- made on account of amortization of premium, however, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance in respect of prior period expenses of Rs. 35,916/- out of total disallowance