ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

section 32 of IT Act under which the assessee company is legally entitled to deduction of depreciation 73,53,340/- on the Winds mills as against Rs.36,72

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

72,047/-, Inter-alia making\nmajor addition of Rs, 75,00,000/- under section 56(2)(ix) of the income Tax\nAct. The addition made by the learned AO is patently wrong because the\nassessee was never owing the plot, the assessee never received advance\nand further the action of the assessee was that of a middle

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. GOENKA JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalito, Ward 2(1), Jaipur ...... Appellant

sections 70, 72 and 74 of the Act do not come into play while allowing the deduction u/s. 10AA of the Act. The Ld. A.O. is wrong in holding that B/f business loss and B/f unabsorbed depreciation

AKSHAY INFRASYS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

72,000/- and depreciation of Rs. 5,97,143/-. Since both the grounds are interrelated and has same set of facts the same are decided together. 14 Akshay Infrasys Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 10. The bench noted that the ld. CIT(A) has given the categorical and clear finding that :- “(vii) There is no documentation to show that what

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

72 taxmann.com 133 (Karnataka) In view of the above, addition made by ld. AO amounting to Rs 1,89,824 and confirmed by ld. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. GROUND NO.3: NOT OBTAINING PROPER SANCTION U/S 151 OF THE ACT ASSESSING OFFICER: Ld. AO did not obtain proper sanction as per provisions of section and reopened the assessment

EMGEE CABLES & COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 1 of the

72 and sub-section (3) of section 73, the allowance or the part of the allowance to which effect has not been given, as the case may be, shall be added to the amount of the allowance for depreciation

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

72,612/- under the head “ wind mills at wind power generation unit”, we find that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of textiles (yarn & fabrics) and generation and supply of power and satisfies the necessary condition for claim of additional depreciation as prescribed under section

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)

depreciation as on 31.03.2015 is to the extent of Rs.2034.40 crore. Providing financial help by the Government to these companies also cannot be a reason for not allowing the claim of bad debt. 5. The claim of bad debts is allowable u/s 36(1)(vii) which reads as under:- “subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount

HARBANS LAL SETHI,JAIPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

72,053/-last year and Net Profit 2,66.97,007/- giving NP rate of 11.00% (before Interest & depreciation) as against N.P. shown 4 Shri Harbans Lal Sethi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-2, Kota . at Rs.1,89,85,180/-giving NP rate of 8.04% (before Interest & depreciation) last year. It is noted that the AO rejected the books of account

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)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

SUPREME BUILDESTATES PVT LTD,MADANGANJ- KISHANGARH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2 AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

72,00,024/- to meet the CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) as per Policy formulated under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.2,25,21,500 qualified for deduction under Section 80G of the Act and therefore the assessee claimed of 50% of amount being Rs.1,12,60,750/- as deduction under

ADITYA CEMENT,BEHROR vs. ITO, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

depreciation. Finally, it filed ITR on 26.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.30,00,650/- During assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised computation including the surrendered amount under the head “Income from business & profession” and explaining that there being no column in the ITR to show “Surrendered business income”, it had shown the same under the head “Income from other

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

72 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. NFAC and the findings are reproduced as under:- “6. Decision: The appeal for assessment year 2010 — 11 and 2011 — 12 was decided, vide `ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1042807601(1) dated 21/04/2022, where vide para-7 of the order, it was held as under

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

72 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. NFAC and the findings are reproduced as under:- “6. Decision: The appeal for assessment year 2010 — 11 and 2011 — 12 was decided, vide `ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1042807601(1) dated 21/04/2022, where vide para-7 of the order, it was held as under

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

72 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. NFAC and the findings are reproduced as under:- “6. Decision: The appeal for assessment year 2010 — 11 and 2011 — 12 was decided, vide `ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1042807601(1) dated 21/04/2022, where vide para-7 of the order, it was held as under

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

72 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. NFAC and the findings are reproduced as under:- “6. Decision: The appeal for assessment year 2010 — 11 and 2011 — 12 was decided, vide `ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1042807601(1) dated 21/04/2022, where vide para-7 of the order, it was held as under

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

72 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. NFAC and the findings are reproduced as under:- “6. Decision: The appeal for assessment year 2010 — 11 and 2011 — 12 was decided, vide `ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1042807601(1) dated 21/04/2022, where vide para-7 of the order, it was held as under

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

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

section 43B. In view of the mandate of clause (a) of section 47 ITA No. 253/JP/2015 along with 13 other appeals. M/s Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. 43B of the Act, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed