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

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

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

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

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

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

RAM KHILARI MEENA,DAUSA vs. ITO, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

57,500 u/s 44AE, an amount of Rs. 14,341 being income from "other sources" and an amount of Rs.72,114 being long term capital gains. However, the AO had information that there are cash deposits in Bank of Baroda A/c No. 225901000006538 at Rs. 11,10,000 and also withdrawals of Rs.26,78,500. The AO observed that

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

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

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 69.” • In the case of Bajaj Sons. Ltd., the Hon’ble Chandigarh Bench of ITAT, ITA No. 1127/CHD/2019, has stated as under: “The AO has not pointed out any unexplained credit in the books of account, any unexplained investment, any unexplained money, bullion or jewellery, any unexplained expenditure or any amount of loan repaid in the assessment order

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

57. Before us, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the claim of depreciation on leasehold right though not lodged in the Return of Income, the aforesaid ground raised being purely legal in nature may kindly be admitted since no new facts are brought on record. Details of acquisition of leasehold rights are already available

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

57,647/-.\n6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), was not justified and erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O. on account of unexplained investments u/s 69B to the tune of Rs. 15,88,040/- by considering it as bogus purchases.\n7. That on the facts

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

section 263 of the Act. The assessment order is set aside and restored\nto the file of Assessing officer to examine the issues in the light of the\nobservation made in this order after allowing reasonable opportunity to the\nassessee.\n5. Feeling dissatisfied with the finding recorded by the Id. PCIT, Central,\nJaipur in an order passed

DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JPR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

depreciation is admissible under section 32, Shall not be deemed to be expenditure incurred by the assessee for any of the purposes specified in sub-section (2). (4) The deduction to be allowed under sub-section (1) for any relevant previous year shall be— (a) an amount equal to one-tenth of the expenditure specified in sub-section (2) (such

DCIT, CIRCLE-6 JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, TILAK NAGAR JPR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

depreciation is admissible under section 32, Shall not be deemed to be expenditure incurred by the assessee for any of the purposes specified in sub-section (2). (4) The deduction to be allowed under sub-section (1) for any relevant previous year shall be— (a) an amount equal to one-tenth of the expenditure specified in sub-section (2) (such

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

depreciation is admissible under section 32, Shall not be deemed to be expenditure incurred by the assessee for any of the purposes specified in sub-section (2). (4) The deduction to be allowed under sub-section (1) for any relevant previous year shall be— (a) an amount equal to one-tenth of the expenditure specified in sub-section (2) (such

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

depreciation is admissible under section 32, Shall not be deemed to be expenditure incurred by the assessee for any of the purposes specified in sub-section (2). (4) The deduction to be allowed under sub-section (1) for any relevant previous year shall be— (a) an amount equal to one-tenth of the expenditure specified in sub-section (2) (such