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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

57(iii) of the Act. In our opinion, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. (supra) on identical set of facts has answered a similar question against the assessee. Therefore, the interest received by the assessee on temporary deposit of funds which are not required immediately has to be assessed as 'Income

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 32(i)(iia) of the Act and the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2012 doesn’t in any manner impact such a claim of the assessee and thus, the disallowance so made of additional depreciation is hereby directed to be deleted. 22. In respect of additional depreciation of Rs 5,25,57

SAVITRI LEASING FINANCE LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

57,319/- (carried forward) as disclosed by the assessee in the original return. 4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the plea of the assessee that there was no claim of depreciation against income from house property and hence, no double deduction of depreciation

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 is hereby allowed and the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed. 22. In Ground no. 4, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of commission of Rs.19,56,000/- paid to non residents u/s 40(a)(ia) of IT Act, 1961. 10 M/s Maharaja Shree

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

57 of Rs.34,647/- in\nthe head income from other sources, the assessee was involved in a transaction\nof sale of immovable property during the year and the same resulted in short\nterm loss of Rs.1,46,543/- the difference of the cost of purchase and the sale\nconsideration was Rs.63,000/- so the short term loss was restricted

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)

57 to 60/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10, 2012-13 to 2015-16 cuke Om Kothari Foundation ITO (Exemption) Vs. O, Om Tower, M.I. Road Ward-1 Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATO 06161 vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Anish Maheshwari, CA jktLo dh vksj

ACIT, KOTA vs. SHIV AGREVO LTD., BARAN

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

57(iii). This phrase, as held by many legal pronouncement, is the most important yardstick for the allowability of deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. While explaining the meaning of this phrase the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (A), Chandigarh reported in 288 ITR 1 has used

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

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)

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

NATWAR LAL SHARDA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 56(2)(iii), any income by way of letting out of plant & machinery alongwith factory, if not chargeable under the head “Business & profession” than it would be chargeable to tax under the head “Income from Other Sources”. Further ld. PCIT has held that the assessee has claimed expenditure u/s 57 of Rs. 1,49,574/- which includes depreciation

HARBANS LAL SETHI,JAIPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

depreciation would be Rs.2,42,93,596/-. The AO is directed to take assessee’s net business income at Rs.2,42,93596/-.” 16.4 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR relied on the order of the AO and prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 57,44,388/- to Rs. 15.00 lacs

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. GOENKA JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalito, Ward 2(1), Jaipur ...... Appellant

section 10AA of the Act. But subject to set off of brought forward losses of Rs. 2,57,35,984/- and depreciation

BANSAL CLASSES PVIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

57,450/- made by disallowing refund of caution money; (ii) deleting addition of Rs. 35,20,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 43,20,000/- made by invoking provisions of section 40A(2)(b) on account of excess salary payment; (iii) deleting addition of Rs. 1,03,00,000/- made by disallowing deduction claimed by the assessee company

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

section 36(1)(iii). The view which has been taken by the division Bench in Phaltan Sugar Works (supra) has expressly now been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. ( supra). [Para 9]” 4. Not all the Loans are given in current year: 4.1 As mentioned earlier the assessee made investments in these ongoing concerns

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

section 36(1)(iii). The view which has been taken by the division Bench in Phaltan Sugar Works (supra) has expressly now been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. ( supra). [Para 9]” 4. Not all the Loans are given in current year: 4.1 As mentioned earlier the assessee made investments in these ongoing concerns

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

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

57 Taxman 123 (Cal.), 3. Gedore Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 105 Taxman 3 (Delhi). Whether CERs should be taxable as revenue receipt under section 28 (iv)?- Further, section 28 (iv) clearly brings the receipt from sale of CERs within the ambit of taxability. It reads as follows: 28. Profits and gains of business or profession.--The following income

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Section 14A of Rs. 12,92,57,568/-, disallowance of depreciation on securities- for valuing as per global method of Rs. 7,21,74,918/-, disallowance