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)

44 of the Act. Such computed income is exempted from tax under sections 11 13 Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra and 13, if 85% o f the same is spent on the charitable objects. Once the income is computed and determined 85% of such computed income should be utilized for charitable objects. In view of the above judgment, and following

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

44,946/- --------------------- Rs. 9,90,00,000/- We find these details are factually correct and, therefore, as far as the allocation of the sale consideration to the construction of building and boundary is not in dispute. The assessee has assigned the sale consideration towards building and land underneath by applying the ratio as value adopted by the DLC which comes

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

depreciation of Rs.2,02,91,277/- claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) of IT Act, 1961 M/s Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of commission of Rs.19,56,000/- paid to non residents u/s 40(a)(ia) of IT Act, 1961. 2. In ground

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

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 as on 31.03.2015 is to the extent of Rs.2034.40 crore. Providing financial help by the Government to these companies also cannot be a reason for not allowing the claim of bad debt. 5. The claim of bad debts is allowable u/s 36(1)(vii) which reads as under:- “subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount

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)(1) e) Allowability of Indexation benefit on transfer of Long Term Capital Asset 4. In this case, information regarding receiving of accommodation entry of non- genuine purchases, amounting to Rs. 1,55,68,397/- was flagged on Insight portal for FY 2018-19 relevant to AY 2019-20 as per Risk

SUPREME BUILDESTATES PVT LTD,MADANGANJ- KISHANGARH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2 AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

44,184/- The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the case was subsequently selected for Complete Scrutiny. While assessing the case under consideration, the AO has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80G to the tune of Rs. 17,16,540/- and issued order u/s 143(3) tune of r.w.s. 144B

RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

section 43B. In view of the mandate of clause (a) of section 47 ITA No. 253/JP/2015 along with 13 other appeals. M/s Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. 43B of the Act, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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) read with explanation 10 thereto. 8. Regarding the rate of depreciation applied by the Assessing officer, our reference was drawn to the various assets which has been purchased/installed in respect of wind power project and the relevant findings of the Assessing officer in the assessment order which reads as under:- “1. On verification of the details

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) read with explanation 10 thereto. 8. Regarding the rate of depreciation applied by the Assessing officer, our reference was drawn to the various assets which has been purchased/installed in respect of wind power project and the relevant findings of the Assessing officer in the assessment order which reads as under:- “1. On verification of the details

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) read with explanation 10 thereto. 8. Regarding the rate of depreciation applied by the Assessing officer, our reference was drawn to the various assets which has been purchased/installed in respect of wind power project and the relevant findings of the Assessing officer in the assessment order which reads as under:- “1. On verification of the details

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) read with explanation 10 thereto. 8. Regarding the rate of depreciation applied by the Assessing officer, our reference was drawn to the various assets which has been purchased/installed in respect of wind power project and the relevant findings of the Assessing officer in the assessment order which reads as under:- “1. On verification of the details

K B S ENTEPRISES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT(CIRCLE-6), JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed while upholding the addition/disallowance made by holding that net profit @

Bench: Filing Of This Appeal, Was In Appeal Before Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Feeling Dissatisfied With The Assessment Order Dated 16.12.2019, Relating To The Assessment Year 2017-18, Whereby Following Disallowances & Additions Were Made, In Computing Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 3,23,55,510/-:- “6. Subject To Above Remarks, Total Income Of The Assessee Is Computed As Under:-

section 44 AB of the Act and submit report. The answer would be in the negative. Furthermore, it remains unexplained as to why Shri Ashish Khandelwal did not himself appear before the Assessing Officer to establish identity, creditworthiness and genuineness as regards said transaction of unsecured loan. At page 43 of the written submissions furnished before Learned

RAM DEV CHANDELWAL,S/O SHRI HEERA LAL CHANDELWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - BUNDI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Depreciation chart. In the written submission assessee also submitted that : (i) My source of income is from running of color machine, JCB and Tractor plying and from running of pickup. I am doing my business from village Karwar. (ii) As required by your honor copies of all bank accounts maintained by the are enclosed herewith. (iii) I have not maintained

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 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

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereinafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." (Emphasis supplied) What is clear from the above provision is that once assessment is reopened for bringing to tax any income that escaped assessment in terms

BANSAL CLASSES PVIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, revenue’s ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

section 80G of the Act as claimed by the assessee company in its return of income. The ground of the revenue is disposed off accordingly. ITA No. 699/JP/14 & 739/JP/14 44. We now come to cross appeals filed for AY 2011-12 wherein the respective grounds of appeal are as under: Assessee’s grounds of appeal (ITA No. 699/JP/14) “(1) That

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

depreciation etc—Tribunal after\r\ntaking note of factual position, more particularly, that addition which was made\r\nin reassessment proceedings having been deleted by CIT(A) reassessment on\r\nheads which were not part of reasons recorded for reopening assessment is not\r\nsustainable-Held, in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Versus Income-Tax\r\nOfficer