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

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 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

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

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

72,591/- and accumulated Unabsorbed 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

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

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

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

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. 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

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)

section 275(1A) of the Act. Before parting it is stated that even though the claimed modified ground of appeal number 1 of the appellant has not been admitted, without prejudice, it is stated that the ground raised by the appellant stands covered by the above detailed discussion and the ground of appeal number 1 raised by the appellant stands