INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

Section 2(15) is invoked in the case of assessee as the activities of the assessee being run on commercial basis and there being no element of charity? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in holding that the assessee is liable to claim depreciation

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

Section 2(15) is invoked in the case of assessee as the activities of the assessee being run on commercial basis and there being no element of charity? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in holding that the assessee is liable to claim depreciation

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

2) of the Act, dated 10-08-2018 was issued and served upon the assessee company. 3.1 In compliance to the said notices AR of the assessee filed details / information online. The reasons for scrutiny selection were verified from the online submissions of the assessee company. After examination of the information and other details placed on record, the returned income

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

50,444/- but after considering the reply of assessee dt. 12.03.2021 (copy enclosed) that against the similar disallowance made in AY 2014-15, the CIT(A) allowed the relief against which no further appeal is filed & since AO in AY 2015-16 has not made any disallowance, the AO in AY 2018-19 has also not made any disallowance. Thus

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

50,444/- but after considering the reply of assessee dt. 12.03.2021 (copy enclosed) that against the similar disallowance made in AY 2014-15, the CIT(A) allowed the relief against which no further appeal is filed & since AO in AY 2015-16 has not made any disallowance, the AO in AY 2018-19 has also not made any disallowance. Thus

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

50,444/- but after considering the reply of assessee dt. 12.03.2021 (copy enclosed) that against the similar disallowance made in AY 2014-15, the CIT(A) allowed the relief against which no further appeal is filed & since AO in AY 2015-16 has not made any disallowance, the AO in AY 2018-19 has also not made any disallowance. Thus

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

50,000/- from the assessee and violated the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act. Further no proper books of accounts were maintained by the assessee. TDS provisions have not been complied properly. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for claiming exemption under section 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was also submitted

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)

depreciation and development rebate. Section 35 grants deduction on expenditure for scientific research and knowledge extension in natural and applied sciences under agriculture, animal husbandry and fisheries. Payment to approved universities/ 15 Supreme Buildestates Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT research institutions or company also qualifies for deduction. In-house R&D is eligible for deduction, under this section. Section 35CCD provides

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

50,000 Preliminary 5,440 5,440 expenses written off Misc. Expenses 13,174 13,174 Depreciation 2,32,414 2,32,414 Total Expenses 56,88,968 56,88,968 Adjusted Profit 4,09,19,882 2,52,91,655 M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. before tax (A) Profit before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

50,000 Preliminary 5,440 5,440 expenses written off Misc. Expenses 13,174 13,174 Depreciation 2,32,414 2,32,414 Total Expenses 56,88,968 56,88,968 Adjusted Profit 4,09,19,882 2,52,91,655 M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. before tax (A) Profit before

OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

section 14A(1), deduction of that expenditure is not to be allowed which has been incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. Axiomatically, it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is includible in total income that

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 u/s 147/148 of 1.T. Act, 1961 & reopened the case. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in upholding the action of Ld. A.O. for reopening of Assessment. 2 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR 2. That the Ld. A.O. grossly erred on Law and Facts in not accepting the order of Higher Authorities

SM WORKFORCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. ITO, WARD, BHIWADI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfillment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

50 lacs, the service provider will get additional 10% of commission as an incentive. We therefore find that the assessee company which is engaged in ship brokerage services has engaged the services of M/s Trans Coral Shipping FZE to expand its brokerage services to shipping companies based in UAE and the relationship between the two companies is that of principal

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

50. This sale transactions were finalized for Rs. 20,83,39,232/- and the payments to the sellers were made through Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sharma resident of Barkat Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur. Shri Madan Mohan Gupta further admitted that he got Rs. 8.00 lacs as his reimbursement from this land transaction.” Thus it reveals from the assessment order that after

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2), no deduction or set-off of any loss (including unabsorbed depreciation or MAT credit) is permissible against income deemed under Sections 68 to 69D. The argument that unabsorbed depreciation is not a "loss" is already settled against assessee. Relied on: Sudarshan Silks & Sarees v. CIT (2008) 300 ITR 205 (Kar) CIT v. Chimanlal S. Patel

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable