ACIT, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD., KOTA

6. The ld AR, at the outset, submitted that both the issues regarding the claim of additional depreciation on power plant and windmill, and the claim of deduction u/s 43B was examined in the course of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) as under:- (a) AO vide query letter dt. 25.10.2010 in Point No. 3 and 9 required assessee to furnish

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. 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

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

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year forwhich set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance

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

iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory\r\nlimit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or\r\nratio or fraction\r\n7.1 A joint reading of the above provisions makes it evident that the claim of\r\ndeduction under section 80P of the Act cannot be allowed the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, SIKAR

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

6 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, and an award was passed on 2-12-1967 by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi\ngranting compensation in favour of the appellant. The Additional District Judge by\nthe judgment dated 20-5-1980 held the appellant entitled to 1/32 share of the\ncompensation awarded under various awards and the appellant was granted total

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

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

6 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, and an award was passed on 2-12-1967 by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi\ngranting compensation in favour of the appellant. The Additional District Judge by\nthe judgment dated 20-5-1980 held the appellant entitled to 1/32 share of the\ncompensation awarded under various awards and the appellant was granted total

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

6 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, and an award was passed on 2-12-1967 by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi\ngranting compensation in favour of the appellant. The Additional District Judge by\nthe judgment dated 20-5-1980 held the appellant entitled to 1/32 share of the\ncompensation awarded under various awards and the appellant was granted total

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

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

6 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, and an award was passed on 2-12-1967 by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi\ngranting compensation in favour of the appellant. The Additional District Judge by\nthe judgment dated 20-5-1980 held the appellant entitled to 1/32 share of the\ncompensation awarded under various awards and the appellant was granted total

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

6 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, and an award was passed on 2-12-1967 by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi\ngranting compensation in favour of the appellant. The Additional District Judge by\nthe judgment dated 20-5-1980 held the appellant entitled to 1/32 share of the\ncompensation awarded under various awards and the appellant was granted total

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

6 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, and an award was passed on 2-12-1967 by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi\ngranting compensation in favour of the appellant. The Additional District Judge by\nthe judgment dated 20-5-1980 held the appellant entitled to 1/32 share of the\ncompensation awarded under various awards and the appellant was granted total

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

6 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, and an award was passed on 2-12-1967 by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi\ngranting compensation in favour of the appellant. The Additional District Judge by\nthe judgment dated 20-5-1980 held the appellant entitled to 1/32 share of the\ncompensation awarded under various awards and the appellant was granted total

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

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

6 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, and an award was passed on 2-12-1967 by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi\ngranting compensation in favour of the appellant. The Additional District Judge by\nthe judgment dated 20-5-1980 held the appellant entitled to 1/32 share of the\ncompensation awarded under various awards and the appellant was granted total

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

6 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, and an award was passed on 2-12-1967 by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi\ngranting compensation in favour of the appellant. The Additional District Judge by\nthe judgment dated 20-5-1980 held the appellant entitled to 1/32 share of the\ncompensation awarded under various awards and the appellant was granted total

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

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

6 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, and an award was passed on 2-12-1967 by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi\ngranting compensation in favour of the appellant. The Additional District Judge by\nthe judgment dated 20-5-1980 held the appellant entitled to 1/32 share of the\ncompensation awarded under various awards and the appellant was granted total

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ANIMESH AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

6 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, and an award was passed on 2-12-1967 by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi\ngranting compensation in favour of the appellant. The Additional District Judge by\nthe judgment dated 20-5-1980 held the appellant entitled to 1/32 share of the\ncompensation awarded under various awards and the appellant was granted total

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)

iii) Even if the investment was made in other than mode other than section 11(5) then the income from said investments can be taxed at the maximum marginal rate but in year under consideration, there is no income from the said investment, Therefore, the provision of section 13(1)(d) is not applicable to the assessee and exemption

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

6 of the Land Acquisition Act,\n1894, and an award was passed on 2-12-1967 by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi\ngranting compensation in favour of the appellant. The Additional District Judge by\nthe judgment dated 20-5-1980 held the appellant entitled to 1/32 share of the\ncompensation awarded under various awards and the appellant was granted total