M/S NABH MULTITRADE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. There is no dispute in the case in hand 9 M/s. Nabh Multitrade Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. that the value determined as per the fair market value of the assets of the assessee company as on the date of issue of shares is Rs. 230/- per share which is higher than the value determined

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been\ncomputed;]\n[(d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity)\nlocated outside India.]\n22[Explanation 3. For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the\nAssessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

depreciation and Interest on TDS was claimed as deduction under bona fide belief as there were judicial pronouncements in favour of assessee on both the issues and assessee made a genuine claim, which eventually stood disallowed. It is not a case that assessee claimed any bogus/excessive expenses nor it is proved by ld.AO. With regards to the observations

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

depreciation and Interest on TDS was claimed as deduction under bona fide belief as there were judicial pronouncements in favour of assessee on both the issues and assessee made a genuine claim, which eventually stood disallowed. It is not a case that assessee claimed any bogus/excessive expenses nor it is proved by ld.AO. With regards to the observations

M/S. GINNI GLOBAL PVT. LTD.,ALWAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR

In the result, the ground of appeal no

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act read with rule 11UA of Income-tax Rules. M/s Ginni Global Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 2.That the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.99,22,000/- in respect of preference shares issued by the company without appreciating that the company had correctly determined the NAV as per Rule 11UA of Income

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

56,250/-. The AO observed that the assessee has sold the agricultural land whereas the deduction under section 54 is allowable on sale of residential house. The AO further noted that the agricultural land has been sold by the assessee vide single sale deed and, therefore, the agricultural land and construction thereon was considered as single unit in the said

COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-VI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year.” 14. In the instant case, what is relevant is whether the income has escaped assessment by reason of failure on part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

depreciation of Rs.2,02,91,277/- claimed u/s 32(1)(iia) of IT Act, 1961 M/s Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of commission of Rs.19,56,000/- paid to non residents u/s 40(a)(ia) of IT Act, 1961. 2. In ground

RAJ KUMAR KANDOI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

depreciation [section 32(2)]. (iv) Any other expenditure (not being a capital expenditure) expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning of such income. 8 RAJ KUMAR KANDOI VS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR The case of the assessee is covered in point no. (iv). Hence the addition made by the AO deserves to be deleted. Clauses

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

depreciation by a charitable trust is allowed as deduction and does not amount to taking of double benefit.  CIT vs. Market Committee, Pipli [330 ITR 60] (P&H)  CIT vs. Society of Sisters of St. Anne [146 ITR 28] (Kar)  CIT vs. Bhoruka Public Charitable Trust [240 ITR 513] (Cal)  CIT vs. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) [131 Taxman

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 with effect the A.Y. 2009-10 and onwards. The learned assessing officer disallowed the benefit of exemption to the appellant in the assessment order on the ground that the appellant has violated the investment norms as provided under the four for the trust. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant is having investment in equity shares

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. POONIA WINES, JAIPUR

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

Depreciation on vehicle claimed @ 30% 56,680 Thereafter in an action under section 147 of Income tax, both the sums

M/S. GANPATI GLOBAL PRIVATE LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD1(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

56 of the Act. This court also emphasized the fact that the company was not bound to utilise the interest so earned to adjust it against the interest paid on borrowed capital. The company was free to use this income in any manner it liked. However, while interest earned by investing borrowed capital in short-term deposits is an independent

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S SUKH SAGAR ENCLAVE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation on such asset. If any asset is acquired and if it is a benefit of enduring nature, then of course the assessee cannot get the deduction of amount for acquisition of land as 18 ITO Vs M/s Sukh Sagar Enclave revenue expenditure. When land was not acquired, no capital asset has been acquired, therefore, the payment

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)

depreciation on said rights. Hon'ble ITAT has referred that facts are similar to the facts for AY 2015-16 and the issue has been decided in favour of assessee in the very same order. It is pertinent to mention here this issue for AY 2015-16 was decided in view of the fact that identical issue has already been

ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. ACITDCIT, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

7. In view of the above reasons and findings, this appeal deserves to be allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

56,73,275/-claimed by the assessee in its computation of income, was found to include depreciation of a sum of Rs.3,23,689/-found to have already been 3 ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE6, JAIPUR considered while calculating deductions u/s 80 IA of the Act. In other words, Assessing Officer was of the view that depreciation

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act.’’ 7.2 The submissions of the appellant during the appellate proceedings are reproduced as under: The appellant has stated relevant facts of the case is already reproduced in foregoing para 5.2 .Therefore the same is not reproducing here for the sake of brevity.’’ 8. Ground No. 4 of appeal relates to disallowing total

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA , KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act.’’ 7.2 The submissions of the appellant during the appellate proceedings are reproduced as under: The appellant has stated relevant facts of the case is already reproduced in foregoing para 5.2 .Therefore the same is not reproducing here for the sake of brevity.’’ 8. Ground No. 4 of appeal relates to disallowing total