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

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation, which includes MAT credit also against undisclosed income u/s. 68 of the Act in foregoing paragraph 10 of this order, the ground no. 7 raised by the appellant is dismissed. 11 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO 12. In the result, the assessment order is upheld, and the appeal is dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with the finding recorded

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 does not amount to revaluation of asset. It is only a change in the allocation of the cost of asset to its useful life. Therefore, this amount cannot be added in computing the book profit. As far as not allowing deduction of Rs.15,85,10,128/- on account of provision for bad & doubtful debt written back is concerned

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)

45,44,184/- 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

HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 55(2)(b). The reference of 31.03.2005 in your notice is misplaced. During assessment proceeding vide submission dated 3 October, 2018 (P.B.: 6 to 8), it was submitted that the value appearing in the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2005 (P.B. : 46 to 48) was Rs. 1,57,730/- wherein one year depreciation amounting to Rs 17,525/- was reduced

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation disallowance on catalyst. iii) Curtailing disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds to Rs. 22,45,000/- as against that of Rs. 55,92,19,845/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation disallowance on catalyst. iii) Curtailing disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds to Rs. 22,45,000/- as against that of Rs. 55,92,19,845/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

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

depreciation disallowance on catalyst. iii) Curtailing disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds to Rs. 22,45,000/- as against that of Rs. 55,92,19,845/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

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

GOVERDHAN PRASHAD SINGHAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, JAIPUR

depreciation claimed on that building. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in directing to computing notional rent an old unusuable house on ratio laid down in the case of M/s. 3 Assessment Year 2017 Assessment Year 2017-18 AnsalHousing Finance and Leasing Ltd. by the Hon’ AnsalHousing

DCIT, C-6, JAIPUR vs. GOVERDHAN PRASAD SINGHAL, JAIPUR

depreciation claimed on that building. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in directing to computing notional rent an old unusuable house on ratio laid down in the case of M/s. 3 Assessment Year 2017 Assessment Year 2017-18 AnsalHousing Finance and Leasing Ltd. by the Hon’ AnsalHousing

CHURU ZILA SAHKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD.,CHURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Section 32 of IT Act and thereby rejecting the alternate claim of the assessee in not allowing depreciation @ 10% amounting to Rs. 4,58,960/- on addition of Rs. 45

SMT. SHEELA YOGI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 3 & 4 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed

Bench: Him Under Rule 46A Of The Income Tax Act, 1962. 2(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act.

45,33,000/-. Advance received from the second transaction has been claimed to be utilized towards discharge of consideration towards the first transaction of purchase of the agricultural land and to that extent, these two transactions can be said to be connected, however, retain their respective attributes and character. The Assessing Officer has not made any addition towards unexplained investments

M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

45,760/-. Thereafter, assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 12.12.2015 and income was assessed at Rs. 4,62,57,217/-, so the regular assessment was finalized. 7. A notice under section 153A of the Act for this year was on issued on 21.08.2018 and pursuant to that notice the assessee e-filed the return

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

45,760/-. Thereafter, assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 12.12.2015 and income was assessed at Rs. 4,62,57,217/-, so the regular assessment was finalized. 7. A notice under section 153A of the Act for this year was on issued on 21.08.2018 and pursuant to that notice the assessee e-filed the return

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

SHRI SALASAR BALAJI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

45\nITR 206(SC) (3 Judge Bench) had observed that "the ITO is not bound by any technical rules of the\nlaw of evidence. It is open to him to collect material to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry.\nBut, if he desires to use the material so collected, the assessee must be informed about the material\nand given adequate

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