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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

5 conveyance exp. 362421.00 603900.00 840313.00 6 depreciation charges 2896422.07 3095136.95 3798057.57 7 drawing & craft exp. 515632.00 685971.00 678011.00 8 education exp. 587609.00 640070.00 730717.00 9 education al tour & picnic 290150.00 755993.00 930590.00 10 electricity & water exp. 204332.00 207415.00 346705.00 11 E.S.I.employerscontribution 132012.00 177189.00 181118.00 12 P.F. employers contribution 228558.00 287923.00 278068.00 13 examination

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)

5. That the Ld. A.O. grossly erred in making the addition of Rs. 27,67,977.00 by disallowing depreciation, stating that this is out of corpus of the Trust. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not allowing the depreciation & did different interpretation which is not based on earlier order of Higher Authorities. 6. That the Ld. A.O. grossly

RAATH VIDYAPEETH,ALWAR vs. ITO (EXMP.), WARD-ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

depreciation is a factual issue and requires verification and checking of the records which are filed and available with the AO, therefore in the fitness of things, it is appropriate to restore this issue to the file of AO with a direction to verify from the records as to whether such assets have been taken into account while determining

ACIT, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD., KOTA

5(1A), an undertaking engaged in generation or generation and distribution of power, may instead of claiming depreciation on its assets under clause (i) of sec. 32(1) i.e. SLM basis has an option to claim depreciation under clause (ii) of the said section

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

depreciation on CPP was allowed by the AO while framing the assessment under M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Section 143(3) after conscious consideration of the material on record. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the formation of the belief regarding the escapement of the assessment by the AO is based

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

depreciation on CPP was allowed by the AO while framing the assessment under M/s. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Section 143(3) after conscious consideration of the material on record. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the formation of the belief regarding the escapement of the assessment by the AO is based

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

section 115J which preceded sec 115JA. This peculiar provision raised a controversy as to the legal implication of insertion of sub-sec (5) and sub-sec (4) in sec 115JB and 115JA respectively. This legal issue has been considered by Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Frigsales (India

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

section 115J which preceded sec 115JA. This peculiar provision raised a controversy as to the legal implication of insertion of sub-sec (5) and sub-sec (4) in sec 115JB and 115JA respectively. This legal issue has been considered by Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Frigsales (India

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

section 115J which preceded sec 115JA. This peculiar provision raised a controversy as to the legal implication of insertion of sub-sec (5) and sub-sec (4) in sec 115JB and 115JA respectively. This legal issue has been considered by Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Frigsales (India

SHRI BHANWAR LAL KHICHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section (2) of section 288 and furnish along with the return of income for the relevant assessment year, the report of such audit in the prescribed form14 duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed:] 15[Provided also that any amount of donation received by the fund or institution in terms

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

depreciation of Rs. 52,88,222/-) net surplus of Rs. 1,58,99,324/- was claimed as exempt under section 11 and transferred to the corpus fund of the trust in Balance sheet. During the year 4,51,17,188/- on purchase of land and Rs. 45,66,860/- on other assets purchased was stated to be spent on capital

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section. Similar provision was incorporated in sub-s. (4) of s. 115JA which is the predecessor of s. 115JB. But absent in s. 115J which preceded s. 115JA. This peculiar provision raised a controversy as to the legal implication of insertion of sub-s. (5) and sub-s. (4) in s. 115JB and s. 115JA, respectively. This legal issue

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

5,59,890 - 2,88,820 3,71,330 1,25,000 4,20,300 74,27,089 made Closing 53,108 4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

5,59,890 - 2,88,820 3,71,330 1,25,000 4,20,300 74,27,089 made Closing 53,108 4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

5,59,890 - 2,88,820 3,71,330 1,25,000 4,20,300 74,27,089 made Closing 53,108 4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

5,59,890 - 2,88,820 3,71,330 1,25,000 4,20,300 74,27,089 made Closing 53,108 4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

5,59,890 - 2,88,820 3,71,330 1,25,000 4,20,300 74,27,089 made Closing 53,108 4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

5,59,890 - 2,88,820 3,71,330 1,25,000 4,20,300 74,27,089 made Closing 53,108 4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed