ACIT, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD., KOTA

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act as it stood upto A.Y. 2012-13, it is evident that the additional depreciation is permissible to all assessees who are engaged in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing. In the circumstances, the assessee who is desirous of claiming the additional depreciation need only to prove that during

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

43,997 is deleted. This ground is "Allowed". 8. Ground No (i) and (iv) are general in nature and does not require any separate adjudication and treated as dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal is "Partly Allowed." 5. As the assessee did not find any favour, from the appeal so filed before the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were expressly

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were expressly

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were expressly

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

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

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ANIMESH AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

43,500/- for AY 2007-08, AY 2008-09, AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11 respectively. Accepting the income declared in the returns of income filed u/s 153A, the AO completed the assessments without making any addition, whatsoever. No appeal was preferred by the assessee against the assessment so made. On the other hand, the AO initiated penalty

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

43 in respect of certain\nnon-residents. The case of the assessee, inter alia, was that the proposed action\nwas barred by limitation as right to commence proceedings of assessment against\nthe assessee as an agent of non-resident for the assessment year 1954-55 ended\non 31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This

NIMBUS PIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were expressly