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)

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 precast items were

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

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. In absence

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)

section 32(1) and, therefore, there is no question of allowing depreciation on said rights. Hon'ble ITAT has referred that facts are similar to the facts for AY 2015-16 and the issue has been decided in favour of assessee in the very same order. It is pertinent to mention here this issue for AY 2015-16 was decided

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

97,71,650/-. Besides this, AO made no efforts to ascertain whether the building portion of asset sold was a depreciable asset or not, AO failed to obtain the bifurcation of sales pertaining to building and land and if the factory premises was the depreciable asset it should have been subjected to short term capital gain. 3. In view

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

M/S BALAJI CONSTRUCTION,AJMER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, AJMER

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation allowed to us on such assets. Accordingly also, the past &/or earlier history should have been followed. Thus, the action of AO in invoking his jurisdiction under section 154 is not legally tenable as beyond the scope of power under section 154 of the Act& the order of above-said assessment year i.e. 2016-17 has been decided

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. PARADISE PROPERTIES, SAROJNI MARG, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

section 68 of the Act. Consequent to that the claim of the assessee for interest expenses on cash credit for an amount of Rs. 97,12,126/- was also disallowed. During the assessment proceeding vide query letter dated 02.11.2019 the assessee was asked to furnish the supporting bills and vouchers to substantiate the additions made to the fixed assets

ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. ACITDCIT, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

7. In view of the above reasons and findings, this appeal deserves to be allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

97,35,358/-, it would have led to claiming of excess deductions u/s 80 IA of the Act i.e. the deductible amount would have been higher by Rs. 3,23,689/- than is permissible to be deducted u/s 80 IA of the Act. Conclusion 6. In the given situation and having regard to the provisions of Section 32 and Section

RAM KHILARI MEENA,DAUSA vs. ITO, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 139(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The case of the assessee case was reopened on the basis of information received by the ld. AO that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 55,50,000/- in his bank account and withdrew Rs. 1,18,75,00/- from the bank account. Notice u/s 148A(a) was issued

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

97,55,976/- and adjustment of disallowable expenditure it has shown net loss of Rs. 4,92,41,31,841/-. The corporation is registered as a charitable institution u/s 12A(a) of the IT Act dated 08.03.1989. The objects fall in the last limb of the definition of section 2(15) i.e. advancement of any other object of general public

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

97,55,976/- and adjustment of disallowable expenditure it has shown net loss of Rs. 4,92,41,31,841/-. The corporation is registered as a charitable institution u/s 12A(a) of the IT Act dated 08.03.1989. The objects fall in the last limb of the definition of section 2(15) i.e. advancement of any other object of general public

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

97,55,976/- and adjustment of disallowable expenditure it has shown net loss of Rs. 4,92,41,31,841/-. The corporation is registered as a charitable institution u/s 12A(a) of the IT Act dated 08.03.1989. The objects fall in the last limb of the definition of section 2(15) i.e. advancement of any other object of general public

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

97,55,976/- and adjustment of disallowable expenditure it has shown net loss of Rs. 4,92,41,31,841/-. The corporation is registered as a charitable institution u/s 12A(a) of the IT Act dated 08.03.1989. The objects fall in the last limb of the definition of section 2(15) i.e. advancement of any other object of general public

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

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

97,55,976/- and adjustment of disallowable expenditure it has shown net loss of Rs. 4,92,41,31,841/-. The corporation is registered as a charitable institution u/s 12A(a) of the IT Act dated 08.03.1989. The objects fall in the last limb of the definition of section 2(15) i.e. advancement of any other object of general public

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

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

section 147, the AO comes to conclusion, that the income, with respect to which he has\nentertained \"reason to believe\" to have escaped assessment, did not escape, or that it was not\nliable to tax, then merely because he had initiated proceedings, would not confer on him the\ncontinued jurisdiction, to assess the other incomes, which have come

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\r\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in\r\nsections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).\"\r\n27. It is established principle of interpretation of statutes, that the Parliament is\r\npresumed to be not extravagant, in using the words

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

97 CCH 80 (Mad) & Best Trading and Agencies Ltd. -vs.- DCIT (2020) 428 ITR 52 (Kar - HC). 30. Thus in the appreciation of the provision of the law as enacted as contained in the act vide section 115JB(5) specifically provides that – “Save as otherwise provided in this section, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to every assessee