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 with effect the A.Y. 2009-10 and onwards. The learned assessing officer disallowed the benefit of exemption to the appellant in the assessment order on the ground that the appellant has violated the investment norms as provided under the four for the trust. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant is having investment in equity shares

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(1)(iia) was claimed in that year equivalent to Rs. 19,09,306/-. Therefore, the balance 50% (i.e 10% of the cost of the Plant & Machinery acquired and installed and used for less than 180 days in the previous year 2010-11) of the allowable additional depreciation equal to Rs. 19,09,306/- is claimed in the previous

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

64,27,170/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has failed to prove that prior period expenses were actually paid in the relevant financial year; 4. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter, delete or modify the above ground of appeal before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

64,27,170/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has failed to prove that prior period expenses were actually paid in the relevant financial year; 4. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter, delete or modify the above ground of appeal before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

64,27,170/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has failed to prove that prior period expenses were actually paid in the relevant financial year; 4. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter, delete or modify the above ground of appeal before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

64,27,170/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has failed to prove that prior period expenses were actually paid in the relevant financial year; 4. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter, delete or modify the above ground of appeal before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

64,27,170/- without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition made by the AO was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has failed to prove that prior period expenses were actually paid in the relevant financial year; 4. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter, delete or modify the above ground of appeal before

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

PRADEEP KUMAR HIMMATRAMKA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JHUNJHUNU

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

Bench: Ao & No Defect Whatsoever Was Pointed Out In The Same, Thus The Observation Of The Ao & Ld. Cit(A) That The Assessee Has Not Maintained Stock Records Deserves To Be Excluded & Ignored

64,158/-). Appellant prays addition so made may please be deleted. 2.1 That the ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming disallowance out of depreciation claimed on car which is a legal disallowance and thus could not be disallowed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

section 270A(9) assessee is covered and how the case related to mis reporting, it is requested that penalty imposed by ld.AO and confirmed by ld.CIT(A) deserves to be deleted.” The ld. AR of the assessee also filed a detailed paper book in 8. support of the contention so raised in the written submission. The index of the document

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

section 270A(9) assessee is covered and how the case related to mis reporting, it is requested that penalty imposed by ld.AO and confirmed by ld.CIT(A) deserves to be deleted.” The ld. AR of the assessee also filed a detailed paper book in 8. support of the contention so raised in the written submission. The index of the document

SILVER WINGS LIFE SPACES,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

64 ITR 593, wherein Calcutta High Court held as under: “ 59/61. In the instant case the assessee is a firm formed for the purpose of carrying on business. There is nothing on record to show that the firm had any source of income other than business. Therefore, in our opinion, it is not 14 Silver Wings Life Spaces vs DCIT

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

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

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 u/s 80G of the Act; (iv) deleting addition of Rs. 1,06,277/- made by disallowing excess depreciation claimed on Xerox machine;” 64

SHRI VIVEK SONI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 44AE. While framing the assessment the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 64,675/- on account of depreciation of car claimed

SMT. KRISHNA SONI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 44AE. While framing the assessment the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 64,675/- on account of depreciation of car claimed

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 12 ITA No. 253/JP/2015 along with 13 other appeals. M/s Rajasthan

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)

section 250 of Income Tax Act by the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without providing the proper opportunity of being heard, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and equity and liable to be quashed. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing Kraft Paper in the State

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