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 ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

43,373/- added with reference to the TP adjustments. The adjustment so made are as under:\na) Reduction in claim u/s 80-IA on power undertakings for an amount of Rs. 2,70,66,00,914/-.\nb) Reduction in claim u/s 80-IA on Solid Waste Management System for an amount of Rs. 90,55,18,397/-.\nc) Reduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

M/S KISHANGARH HI TECH TEXTILE PARK LTD.,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TECH), AJMER

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

Section 43(1) is not applicable. Further M/s Kishangarh Hi Tech Textile Park Ltd. reliance was placed on the decisions in case of Sasisri Extractions vs. ACIT 122 ITD 428 (Vizag), Inventaa Chemical Ltd vs CIT 42 SOT 249 (Hyd) and Sohan Electroplast Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 1578/PN/2008 (Pune). 5. It was further submitted that the appellant had claimed depreciation

M/S KISHANGARH HI TECH TEXTILE PARK LTD.,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TECH), AJMER

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

Section 43(1) is not applicable. Further M/s Kishangarh Hi Tech Textile Park Ltd. reliance was placed on the decisions in case of Sasisri Extractions vs. ACIT 122 ITD 428 (Vizag), Inventaa Chemical Ltd vs CIT 42 SOT 249 (Hyd) and Sohan Electroplast Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 1578/PN/2008 (Pune). 5. It was further submitted that the appellant had claimed depreciation

M/S KISHANGARH HI TECH TEXTILE PARK LTD.,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TECH), AJMER

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

Section 43(1) is not applicable. Further M/s Kishangarh Hi Tech Textile Park Ltd. reliance was placed on the decisions in case of Sasisri Extractions vs. ACIT 122 ITD 428 (Vizag), Inventaa Chemical Ltd vs CIT 42 SOT 249 (Hyd) and Sohan Electroplast Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 1578/PN/2008 (Pune). 5. It was further submitted that the appellant had claimed depreciation

M/S KISHANGARH HI TECH TEXTILE PARK LTD.,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TECH), AJMER

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

Section 43(1) is not applicable. Further M/s Kishangarh Hi Tech Textile Park Ltd. reliance was placed on the decisions in case of Sasisri Extractions vs. ACIT 122 ITD 428 (Vizag), Inventaa Chemical Ltd vs CIT 42 SOT 249 (Hyd) and Sohan Electroplast Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 1578/PN/2008 (Pune). 5. It was further submitted that the appellant had claimed depreciation

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)

5) TMI 222] Held that: Thus, we are of the view that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF. GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section