MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Section 45 (2) of the Act for the purposes of assessment for the relevant assessment years, and by adopting a notional value for the purposes of fixing the price for land for stamp duty for working out business income from the sale of land. They correctly adopted a method, which was fair and reasonable in arriving at a value

ITO, ALWAR vs. KUNDAN LAL BADSHAH, ALWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is disposed off with above directions

Section 45, the condition precedent is, (1) There should be a distribution of capital assets of firm; (2) Such distribution should result in transfer of a capital asset by firm in favour of the partner; and 15 ITO, Ward-1(1) Vs. Kundan Lal Badshah, Alwar (3) On account of the transfer there should be a profit or gain derived

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation actually allowed to him under the Act in the case of asset acquired before the previous year. Therefore, one has to read section 50 which provides for determination of cost of the acquisition of the asset along with section 43(6) and section 48 of the Act. Therefore, to sum up section 48, read with section 50 provides

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)

45 of Income Tax Act, Long Term Capital Loss of Rs. 25,80,63,017/-has been computed on such assets after considering indexation benefit. In terms of provisions of Section 115JB(5) and as held in Best Trading And Agencies Ltd. -vs- DCIT (IT'A No. 191/2011 dated 26-08-2020)(Karn. HC), gain or loss

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. 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

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

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

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

45 ITR 50] wherein it was held that where additional depreciation was granted on plant and machinery used for generation and distribution of power in original assessment, same could not be disallowed by invoking provisions of section

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

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

section 37 but was in respect to allowing the depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The submission of the Ld. A/R for the Assessee is that the value of wasting asset will depreciate with the extraction of mineral, in our view, is preposterous. In our view, with passage of 12 ITA No. 253/JP/2015 along with 13 other appeals. M/s Rajasthan

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