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

c) in respect of disallowance of depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) read with section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto in respect of all three years under consideration.” Thus, the issue being common and identical, therefore, following the earlier decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years

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

c) in respect of disallowance of depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) read with section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto in respect of all three years under consideration.” Thus, the issue being common and identical, therefore, following the earlier decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years

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

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

c) in respect of disallowance of depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) read with section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto in respect of all three years under consideration.” Thus, the issue being common and identical, therefore, following the earlier decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years

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

c) in respect of disallowance of depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) read with section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto in respect of all three years under consideration.” Thus, the issue being common and identical, therefore, following the earlier decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years

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

c) in respect of disallowance of depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) read with section 43(1) and explanation 10 thereto in respect of all three years under consideration.” Thus, the issue being common and identical, therefore, following the earlier decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment years

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)

43(6) as per rates prescribed. Ld.AO completed the assessment for AY 2013-14 vide orders dt. 28.03.2016 by re-computing depreciation by taking WDV as on 01.04.2012 as Actual Cost. Assessee preferred appeal against the disallowance so made by ld.AO, which was decided by ld. CIT(A)-2, Jaipur, vide order dated 18.9.2017, which was served upon assessee

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)

43(6) as per rates prescribed. Ld.AO completed the assessment for AY 2013-14 vide orders dt. 28.03.2016 by re-computing depreciation by taking WDV as on 01.04.2012 as Actual Cost. Assessee preferred appeal against the disallowance so made by ld.AO, which was decided by ld. CIT(A)-2, Jaipur, vide order dated 18.9.2017, which was served upon assessee

ACIT, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD., KOTA

6. The ld AR, at the outset, submitted that both the issues regarding the claim of additional depreciation on power plant and windmill, and the claim of deduction u/s 43B was examined in the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) as under:- (a) AO vide query letter dt. 25.10.2010 in Point No. 3 and 9 required assessee to furnish

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

43(6) and section 48 of the Act. Therefore, to sum up section 48, read with section 50 provides for computation of income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" whereas, section 45 is the charging section and it states, inter alia, that any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset shall be chargeable to income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

RAM KISHORE MEENA, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD, MORAK, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing Inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to fumishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income

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

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

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

C. Parwal (FCA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 11/10/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 09/11/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These five appeals are filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ Here

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

C. Parwal (FCA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 11/10/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 09/11/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These five appeals are filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ Here

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

C. Parwal (FCA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 11/10/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 09/11/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These five appeals are filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ Here

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

C. Parwal (FCA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 11/10/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 09/11/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These five appeals are filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ Here

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

C. Parwal (FCA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 11/10/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 09/11/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These five appeals are filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ Here

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)

6 Nimbus Pipes Limited The case of the Appellant covered by the judgments of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, which is jurisdictional High Court of the appellant. Further the Appellant has relied on following Judgments:- 1. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Jaipur vs M/S State Bank of Bikaner And.....[2014 (5) TMI 222] Held that