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

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)

section 32(1) and, therefore, there is no question of allowing 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

CHURU ZILA SAHKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD.,CHURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Section 32 of IT Act and thereby rejecting the alternate claim of the assessee in not allowing depreciation @ 10% amounting to Rs. 4,58

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)

58,716/- (carried forward) and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 15,57,319/- (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

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

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

Depreciation of Rs. 77,85,895/-.\nTotaling Rs 81,58,486/- [PB 200-201].\n1.6. That the assessee Company's DTA Unit (Mahapura) rented the building and\nmachinery situated at Mahapura, Jaipur [PB 387-393] which was earlier\nowned by PinckcityColourstones Pvt. Ltd. during the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to\nAY 2012-13 and started its own domestic Operations being

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

58 of JDA Act provides that accounts of JDA shall be subject to audit by Local Fund Audit in accordance with Rajasthan Local Fund Audit Act. Section 79 provides that recovery of any amount payable to JDA can be recovered as “Arrears of land revenue”. Section 85 of JDA Act provides that JDA shall exercise its powers and perform

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

58 of JDA Act provides that accounts of JDA shall be subject to audit by Local Fund Audit in accordance with Rajasthan Local Fund Audit Act. Section 79 provides that recovery of any amount payable to JDA can be recovered as “Arrears of land revenue”. Section 85 of JDA Act provides that JDA shall exercise its powers and perform

SYLVAN GREENS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

58 Mauza Kulham PO:Berotiwalia Tehsil, Baddi District Scan (HP) 174103 which is backward area and the assessee is a eligible to claim deduction under section 80 IC(ii)(b) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also claimed deduction under section 80IC(ii)(b) since A Y 2010-11 and also claimed for this year also. Copy of Audit

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

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

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

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

58 TW\r\n355(Jp), has also held the same view copy of order is enclosed\r\n(g) Also refer latest decision of this Honble ITAT in the case of PappuQureshi\r\nv/s ITO in ITA No. 314//Jp/2019 dt. 28.04.2020\r\nSec. 292B is no applicable: S. 292B could not be invoked to correct a\r\nfoundational/substantial error

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

58,626/- out of the claim u/s. 80-IA on water treatment system on account of transfer pricing adjustment of water, the relevant fact is that the assessee has computed transfer price of water (Rs.3/ltr) for captive consumption. The price has been determined on the basis of a quotation obtained from Bisleri International Private Limited for Rs. 3.50 per/ltr

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

58,43,293/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of captive power plant. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC,Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,18,12,93,748/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA on account

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 32 of the Act as per prescribed rate of depreciation so provided in the Income tax Rules on such anicut facility in light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra. 13 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 71. Now, coming to various decisions relied upon by the ld AR. We have carefully

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 32 of the Act as per prescribed rate of depreciation so provided in the Income tax Rules on such anicut facility in light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra. 13 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 71. Now, coming to various decisions relied upon by the ld AR. We have carefully

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 32 of the Act as per prescribed rate of depreciation so provided in the Income tax Rules on such anicut facility in light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra. 13 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 71. Now, coming to various decisions relied upon by the ld AR. We have carefully

RAM DEV CHANDELWAL,S/O SHRI HEERA LAL CHANDELWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - BUNDI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

58,230/- under presumptive income Rs. 4,78,228/- under section 44AD of the I.T. Act, 1961 and Rs. 1,80,000/- under section 44AE of the Act. 4.1 As the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the cash deposited during the year. During assessment 6 Ram Dev Chandel vs. ITO proceedings, various notices under