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), the case of assessee is covered. Thus, the levy of penalty for misreporting of income is not justified on the facts as mentioned and Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT discussed herein above and respectfully following the binding judicial decision. 12. Alternatively as argued even on merits of the case the bench noted that the depreciation

ACIT, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD., KOTA

section 32(1) and thus has rightly claimed and been allowed additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia). (b) The payment of land tax and service tax was made in the year under consideration against the demand and therefore same is otherwise allowable u/s 43B. ACIT, Circle-1, Kota vs. M/s Mangalam Cement Ltd. Kota 4. The AO thereafter

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

depreciation and the same should be allowed in the second year and in support has relied on the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2015 whereby third proviso to section 32(1)(ii) has been inserted with effect from 1.4.2016 which reads as under: 9

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation actually allowed to him under the Act in the case of asset acquired before the previous year. Therefore, one has to read section 50 which provides for determination of cost of the acquisition of the asset along with section 43(6) and section 48 of the Act. Therefore, to sum up section 48, read with section 50 provides

COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-VI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 143(3) of the Act. Now, examining the said claim of additional depreciation during the reassessment proceedings would therefore be a clear case of change of opinion. On this ground as well, the reassessment proceedings cannot be held valid in law.” 7. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case

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)

section 24(a) is allowable as application of income." The assessment of the A.O. found to be conclusive and no submission/explanation has been furnished by the appellate during the appellate proceedings. 7 Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra 9. GROUND No. 6:- In this ground the appellant claim that the Ld AO has erred in not allowing the claim of 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 32(1) would mean double deduction, which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 43/[1992] 65 Taxman 420. The depreciation being notional expenditure will not fall under the expression 'actually applied' as held by the Apex Court in the case

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

9) of Section 108 therefore, once the section is omitted from the statute book, the result is it had never been passed and be considered as a law that never exists and therefore, when the assessment orders were passed in 2006, the AO was not justified in taking note of a provision which was not in the statute book

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

9) of Section 108 therefore, once the section is omitted from the statute book, the result is it had never been passed and be considered as a law that never exists and therefore, when the assessment orders were passed in 2006, the AO was not justified in taking note of a provision which was not in the statute book

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO 10.1 In support of its ground of appeal, the appellant submitted before me vide submission dated 13.02.2024 that the unabsorbed depreciation is entitled to be set off against income of Rs. 1,37,00,000/- added u/s. 68 and only balance of Rs. 88,40,720/- liable to be taxed u/s 115BBE

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

9 M/s Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd., Jaipur Vs. DCIT, Jaipur accepted the assessee claim of depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii), there is no reason why the assessee should be denied the claim of additional depreciation on the same assets u/s 32(1)(iia). It was further submitted that the said decision of the Coordinate Bench has since been affirmed

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

9 to 14.\nS No Date\nCheque\nNo.\nDrawn on\nAmount\n1\n18.10.2014\n047309\nICICI Bank\n25,00,000/-\n2\n25.10.2014\n047310\nICICI Bank\n25,00,000/-\n3\n30.10.2014\n047311\nICICI Bank\n25,00,000/-\nTotal\n75,00,000/-\nA copy of relevant bank account of the assessee reflecting the above\npayment is available on paper book page

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

RAJ KUMAR KANDOI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

depreciation [section 32(2)]. (iv) Any other expenditure (not being a capital expenditure) expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning of such income. 8 RAJ KUMAR KANDOI VS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR The case of the assessee is covered in point no. (iv). Hence the addition made by the AO deserves to be deleted. Clauses

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

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

9. What is written down value is defined in clause (6) of section 43 which reads as under : " ' written-down value' means— (a) in the case of assets acquired in the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee ; (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation

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

9. What is written down value is defined in clause (6) of section 43 which reads as under : " ' written-down value' means— (a) in the case of assets acquired in the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee ; (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation

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

9. What is written down value is defined in clause (6) of section 43 which reads as under : " ' written-down value' means— (a) in the case of assets acquired in the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee ; (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation

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

9. What is written down value is defined in clause (6) of section 43 which reads as under : " ' written-down value' means— (a) in the case of assets acquired in the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee ; (b) in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciation