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

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

depreciation was charged on the balances of fixed assets brought forward from earlier year (as is normal practice), however subsequently, mistake was rectified and fixed assets register was modified giving effect to explanation 5 to section 43

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

depreciation was charged on the balances of fixed assets brought forward from earlier year (as is normal practice), however subsequently, mistake was rectified and fixed assets register was modified giving effect to explanation 5 to section 43

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

5 conveyance exp. 362421.00 603900.00 840313.00 6 depreciation charges 2896422.07 3095136.95 3798057.57 7 drawing & craft exp. 515632.00 685971.00 678011.00 8 education exp. 587609.00 640070.00 730717.00 9 education al tour & picnic 290150.00 755993.00 930590.00 10 electricity & water exp. 204332.00 207415.00 346705.00 11 E.S.I.employerscontribution 132012.00 177189.00 181118.00 12 P.F. employers contribution 228558.00 287923.00 278068.00 13 examination

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

RAATH VIDYAPEETH,ALWAR vs. ITO (EXMP.), WARD-ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

depreciation is a factual issue and requires verification and checking of the records which are filed and available with the AO, therefore in the fitness of things, it is appropriate to restore this issue to the file of AO with a direction to verify from the records as to whether such assets have been taken into account while determining

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), Explanation 6. Thus, the actual cost to the transferee-company will be the WDV of the holding company (transferor-company). 13. The assessee based its submission relying on Maharana Mills P. Ltd. v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350 (SC) and Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 194 ITR 294 (SC). The ACIT v M/s Ajmer

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), Explanation 6. Thus, the actual cost to the transferee-company will be the WDV of the holding company (transferor-company). 13. The assessee based its submission relying on Maharana Mills P. Ltd. v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350 (SC) and Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 194 ITR 294 (SC). The ACIT v M/s Ajmer

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), Explanation 6. Thus, the actual cost to the transferee-company will be the WDV of the holding company (transferor-company). 13. The assessee based its submission relying on Maharana Mills P. Ltd. v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350 (SC) and Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 194 ITR 294 (SC). The ACIT v M/s Ajmer

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), Explanation 6. Thus, the actual cost to the transferee-company will be the WDV of the holding company (transferor-company). 13. The assessee based its submission relying on Maharana Mills P. Ltd. v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350 (SC) and Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 194 ITR 294 (SC). The ACIT v M/s Ajmer

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), Explanation 6. Thus, the actual cost to the transferee-company will be the WDV of the holding company (transferor-company). 13. The assessee based its submission relying on Maharana Mills P. Ltd. v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350 (SC) and Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 194 ITR 294 (SC). The ACIT v M/s Ajmer

ACIT, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD., KOTA

5. AO rejected the claim of assessee for grant of additional depreciation on windmill installed during A.Y. 08-09 by observing that assessee is not involved in manufacturing of any goods. Before Tribunal, revenue submitted that assessee is a commission agent and not a manufacturer. For availing benefit of additional depreciation, it is essential that assessee should be engaged

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

depreciation on CPP was allowed by the AO while framing the assessment under M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Section 143(3) after conscious consideration of the material on record. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the formation of the belief regarding the escapement of the assessment by the AO is based

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

depreciation on CPP was allowed by the AO while framing the assessment under M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Section 143(3) after conscious consideration of the material on record. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the formation of the belief regarding the escapement of the assessment by the AO is based

OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

5. Income Tax vs. M/s State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj) iv. DCIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. the ITAT Jaipur Bench ‘B’ ITA No. 1287/JP/2019 Jan 18, 2021 (2021) 61CCH 0057 Jaipur Trib v. So your honour the impugned ESI/PF disallowance is requested to order to delete the addition. Kindly allow the assessee

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

43,293/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of captive power plant. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC,Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,18,12,93,748/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Solid

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

43,293/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of captive power plant. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC,Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,18,12,93,748/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Solid

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

43,293/- on account of deduction u/s 801A in respect of captive power plant. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC,Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,18,12,93,748/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Solid

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