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

90,97,047/-.\n5. 2. It is further noted and as detailed in preceding para above that during\nthe appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any substantial written\nsubmission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal\nchallenging the addition. The onus lies on the appellant to support any claim by\nbringing in cogent documentary evidence

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in\nsections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) \nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this\nsection has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in\nsections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this\nsection has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in\nsections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\n\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this\nsection has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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. 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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciable asset. This well settled position of law was applied by the ld. AO in the instant case also [CIT v. Coimbatore Lodge 328 ITR 69 (Madras)]. Therefore, consciously Id. AO allowed the claim of the assessee. The judgement of Id. AO cannot be replaced, under section 263, by that of Id. PCIT. 10. The interest cost was capitalized

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

90 inter-alia provides that in the even of failure on the part of any local authority to carry out any plan, project or scheme, JDA may carry out such work with the sanction of the State Government. Similar provisions existed in UIT Act. A plain reading of the relevant provision of UIT Act and JDA Act clearly reveal that

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

90 inter-alia provides that in the even of failure on the part of any local authority to carry out any plan, project or scheme, JDA may carry out such work with the sanction of the State Government. Similar provisions existed in UIT Act. A plain reading of the relevant provision of UIT Act and JDA Act clearly reveal that

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

90,73,795 asdiscussed is added to the total income of the assessee firm for AY 2018-19 asper provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act.’’ 7.2 The submissions of the appellant during the appellate proceedings are reproduced as under: The appellant has stated relevant facts of the case is already reproduced in foregoing para 5.2 .Therefore

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA , KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

90,73,795 asdiscussed is added to the total income of the assessee firm for AY 2018-19 asper provisions of section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act.’’ 7.2 The submissions of the appellant during the appellate proceedings are reproduced as under: The appellant has stated relevant facts of the case is already reproduced in foregoing para 5.2 .Therefore

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

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

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

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.\n62. Ground No. 6 (Additional Ground no. 2) of the assessee’s appeal raised by the ld. A/R of the assessee is in relation