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)

65,008 Less: Excess Prov. For Doubtful Debt written back (15,85,10,128) Unabsorbed depreciation or business loss as per books whichever is lower (1,62,54,32,352) Book Profit as per section

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)

65,210 the appellant has claimed a refund of Rs. 16,99,26,055 in the original return of income filed on 30.11.2019. 9 Shree Cement Limited vs. ACIT The above return was processed vide intimation as per provision of section 143(1) of the Act on 15.01.2021. While processing that ITR learned Assistant Director of Income Tax CPC Bangalore

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS AND FEBRICATIONS PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 KOTA , KOTA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

65,771 is being disallowed considering the reason, as stated above. (Disallowance of depreciation and interest claimed on vehicles of Rs. 5,32,219/-)” On this aspect, the ld. CIT(A) at page 6 para 5.2 held as under: “5.2.1 Ground No. 1: Disallowance of depreciation and interest on vehicles. The Assessing officer noted that the appellant had claimed depreciation

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

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 43 applicable, excess depreciation provided by Rs 1077958.00, only on the basis of suspicious without making any enquiry from the assessee. The nature of subsidy received by the assessee is in the form of VAT Exemption given by the Himachal Pradesh State Government to promote establishment of new unit/expansion of existing unit in the state of Himachal Pradesh

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

65,470/-. Further the Addl. DIT (Inv.) Jaipur vide letter no. 587 dated 13.03.2018 has informed that an investigation report was received from DIT (Inv.) Chandigarh alongwith list of beneficiary. 18 M/s. Shiv Vegpro Pvt. Ltd., Kota. As per the information, the assessee has ltaken accommodation entry of Rs. 4,55,43,635/- during the F.Y. 2010-11 from Shree

SHRI SALASAR BALAJI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

65, 00,440/-) Rs.2, 01, 00,440/-, whereas the actual\namount sustained was Rs.1.4 Cr. Only, as emerged out of the order of the Ld. CIT\n(A) that this was the factual error committed by the AO, further the same is not\nunder challenge by the revenue before us. In the similar facts the decision of the\nHon

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

depreciation @25% on such leasehold rights in accordance with the provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Ergo we decide accordingly, and the additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 62. Ground No. 6 (Additional Ground no. 2) of the assessee’s appeal raised by the ld. A/R of the assessee is in relation

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

65,450/- made in respect to Rail System. These Grounds are therefore allowed.”\n4.5 As regards the disallowance of education cess claimed by the assessee amounting to Rs. 3,06,59,279/-, ld. CIT(A) considering the finding of the ld. AO and submission made by the assessee decided the issue against the assessee, as there is an amendment

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation disallowance on catalyst. iii) Curtailing disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds to Rs. 22,45,000/- as against that of Rs. 55,92,19,845/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation disallowance on catalyst. iii) Curtailing disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds to Rs. 22,45,000/- as against that of Rs. 55,92,19,845/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

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

depreciation disallowance on catalyst. iii) Curtailing disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds to Rs. 22,45,000/- as against that of Rs. 55,92,19,845/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case

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

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

65-110) under identical facts has held that the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court's decision in Abhisar Buildwell (supra) does not grant the\nRevenue an unrestrained right to reassess. While search assessments being\nannulled does not preclude reassessment, any such action must comply with\nstatutory provisions, particularly the restrictions under Section 149. The\nHon'ble Court has observed

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

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

In the result, ITA No. 457/JPR/2023 is partly allowed, whereas the ITA

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

In the result, ITA No. 457/JPR/2023 is partly allowed, whereas the ITA

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