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 32(1) would mean double deduction, which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 43/[1992] 65 Taxman 420. The depreciation being notional expenditure will not fall under the expression 'actually applied' as held by the Apex Court in the case

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

SHASHI KANT KHETAN,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) and confirming the trading addition of Rs. 16,73,698 + 34,56,257/- totaling to Rs. 51,29,955/- by estimating the net profit @ 5.1% on turnover of Rs.9,64,53,345/- on the contract business and of Rs. 7,58,25,218/- on ITA 986/JP/2017_

ITO (EXEMPTION), KOTA vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

58,572/- made by the Assessing Officer, the ld. CIT(A) held that since the entire income is allowed as being applied for the purpose of trust, the expenditure on depreciation deduction will be also deemed to be allowed within the overall claim. The Revenue has not challenged the eligibility of the assessee for exemption

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

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

section 37 but was in respect to allowing the depreciation u/s 32 of the Act. The submission of the Ld. A/R for the Assessee is that the value of wasting asset will depreciate with the extraction of mineral, in our view, is preposterous. In our view, with passage of guidelines for protecting the environment, now it is the duty

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

LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

58,80,71,121/- for the application of net profit rate @ 5.75% includes the turnover of Rs. 19,42,49,182/- given on sub- contract basis on which assessee has received 2% net profit margin which fact is never disputed by Ld. AO or by Ld. CIT(A), thus deduction for lower profit margin to the extent of the work

LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

58,80,71,121/- for the application of net profit rate @ 5.75% includes the turnover of Rs. 19,42,49,182/- given on sub- contract basis on which assessee has received 2% net profit margin which fact is never disputed by Ld. AO or by Ld. CIT(A), thus deduction for lower profit margin to the extent of the work

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

58,80,71,121/- for the application of net profit rate @ 5.75% includes the turnover of Rs. 19,42,49,182/- given on sub- contract basis on which assessee has received 2% net profit margin which fact is never disputed by Ld. AO or by Ld. CIT(A), thus deduction for lower profit margin to the extent of the work

LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

58,80,71,121/- for the application of net profit rate @ 5.75% includes the turnover of Rs. 19,42,49,182/- given on sub- contract basis on which assessee has received 2% net profit margin which fact is never disputed by Ld. AO or by Ld. CIT(A), thus deduction for lower profit margin to the extent of the work

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

58,80,71,121/- for the application of net profit rate @ 5.75% includes the turnover of Rs. 19,42,49,182/- given on sub- contract basis on which assessee has received 2% net profit margin which fact is never disputed by Ld. AO or by Ld. CIT(A), thus deduction for lower profit margin to the extent of the work

LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

58,80,71,121/- for the application of net profit rate @ 5.75% includes the turnover of Rs. 19,42,49,182/- given on sub- contract basis on which assessee has received 2% net profit margin which fact is never disputed by Ld. AO or by Ld. CIT(A), thus deduction for lower profit margin to the extent of the work

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

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

Section 80G does not require that the donation should be for commercial expediency. Most of these things are required for allowing deduction of business expenditure u/s 37 of the I.T. Act. Considering the facts, it is held that assessee has fulfilled all the conditions necessary for claiming deduction u/s 80G. The AO is therefore directed to delete addition

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