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

INDIA COMMERCIAL SERVICES ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

section 80G, but no supporting document/evidence to\nverify said claim was submitted during assessment proceedings, and\nobserved that deduction of Rs. 23,876/- should have been disallowed and\nthe amount added to the total income of the assessee firm but, the AO\nfailed to do so.\n4.3 Ld. PCIT also noted that no invoices / purchase bills or other\nevidence

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

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

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

depreciable asset is liable to be excluded from calculation of deemed profits under section 115JA - Held, yes.” (i)In ITO v. Suraj Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2008] 21 SOT 79 (Mum.), Mumbai Tribunal again held that capital receipts which do not constitute income under the Act cannot be brought to tax net by employing the mechanism of section 115JB. The Tribunal

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

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 69.” • In the case of Bajaj Sons. Ltd., the Hon’ble Chandigarh Bench of ITAT, ITA No. 1127/CHD/2019, has stated as under: “The AO has not pointed out any unexplained credit in the books of account, any unexplained investment, any unexplained money, bullion or jewellery, any unexplained expenditure or any amount of loan repaid in the assessment order

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

44 Lovely promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT based on reasons recorded may kindly be declared as invalid and contrary to the settled legal position. 6. Further to the invalidity of belief of escapement on the presumption of escapement of income invoking provision of clause (b) of Explanation 2, reasons for belief of escapement of income

M/S. GURU KRIPA CAREER INSTITUTE PVT. LTD.,SIKAR vs. PR.CIT-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation on fixed assets against deemed income under section 68 - Held, yes [Para 14] [In favour of assessee] 43. Furthermore, it has been observed in the Para 2.14 of the show cause notice that amount of Rs.45,85,897/- under the ‘Staff Payable” has not been verified by the AO. In this regard, we observe that list of staff payable

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

44 [hereinafter referred to as (ld. CIT(A)] dated 08.06.2023 & 09.06.2023 for the Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. These orders of the ld. CIT(A) are in turn arise out of an order passed by ACIT, NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 143 (3) r.w.s 144C(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

44,23,882/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence the addition made on this account should be deleted. 4. That any other grounds and facts will be explained at the time of hearing of the appeal. That the Appellant reserve the right to withdraw, modify and add any of the ground during appeal hearing. ITA No. 335/JP/2017

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

44,23,882/- under the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence the addition made on this account should be deleted. 4. That any other grounds and facts will be explained at the time of hearing of the appeal. That the Appellant reserve the right to withdraw, modify and add any of the ground during appeal hearing. ITA No. 335/JP/2017