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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

47,789/-. This has been accepted by the AO. Since assessee has purchased the residential land for Rs.23,41,728/- and Rs.45,00,000/- is deposited in capital gain account scheme, totaling to Rs.68,41,728/-, 5 Shri Dharmendra Kumar Pareek, Jaipur. assessee has rightly claimed deduction u/s 54 to work out capital gain separately on sale of house

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

depreciation actually allowed to him under the Act. In the instant case Explanation 2 to clause (6) of section 43 is relevant and is reproduced hereunder : ACIT v M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer " Explanation 2.—When any capital asset is transferred by a hold ing company to its subsidiary company or by a subsidiary company to its holding

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

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

depreciation actually allowed to him under the Act. In the instant case Explanation 2 to clause (6) of section 43 is relevant and is reproduced hereunder : ACIT v M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer " Explanation 2.—When any capital asset is transferred by a hold ing company to its subsidiary company or by a subsidiary company to its holding

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

depreciation actually allowed to him under the Act. In the instant case Explanation 2 to clause (6) of section 43 is relevant and is reproduced hereunder : ACIT v M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer " Explanation 2.—When any capital asset is transferred by a hold ing company to its subsidiary company or by a subsidiary company to its holding

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

depreciation actually allowed to him under the Act. In the instant case Explanation 2 to clause (6) of section 43 is relevant and is reproduced hereunder : ACIT v M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer " Explanation 2.—When any capital asset is transferred by a hold ing company to its subsidiary company or by a subsidiary company to its holding

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

depreciation actually allowed to him under the Act. In the instant case Explanation 2 to clause (6) of section 43 is relevant and is reproduced hereunder : ACIT v M/s Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Ajmer " Explanation 2.—When any capital asset is transferred by a hold ing company to its subsidiary company or by a subsidiary company to its holding

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)

47,73,077/-. The levy of additional tax or Surcharge was introduced for the first time by the Finance Act of 2004 Chapter II of the said Act pertains to Rates of Income Tax and Section 2(11) covers the levy of "cess" for the first time under the "Chapter: Rates of Income Tax". A careful reading of the same

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

M/S JINDAL ROADWAYS PVT. LTD.,NASIRABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

47,00,000 95,55,345 Less: Allowable Depreciation (Section 32) 7,25,747 CLOSING WDV 88,29,598 - That

SHRI SANJAY JINDAL,NASIRABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

47,00,000 95,55,345 Less: Allowable Depreciation (Section 32) 7,25,747 CLOSING WDV 88,29,598 - That

DYNAMIC POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected" (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263 cannot be invoked for making short enquiries or to go into the process of assessment again and again merely on the basis that more enquiry ought to have been conducted to find something. In view of above submissions, it is humbly submitted that the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 18.10.2018 by the AO was based on exhaustive

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

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

47 )(iv) but admittedly, after 1- 4-1985, the extended meaning of the word ‘transfer’ was applicable in respect of such conversion. However, capital gain could not be computed unless such stock-in-trade was sold or otherwise transferred. The gain arose only on sale or transfer otherwise. It did not amount to giving retrospective effect to the 17 Pradeep

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

47 )(iv) but admittedly, after 1- 4-1985, the extended meaning of the word ‘transfer’ was applicable in respect of such conversion. However, capital gain could not be computed unless such stock-in-trade was sold or otherwise transferred. The gain arose only on sale or transfer otherwise. It did not amount to giving retrospective effect to the statutes