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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation, which includes MAT credit also against undisclosed income u/s. 68 of the Act in foregoing paragraph 10 of this order, the ground no. 7 raised by the appellant is dismissed. 11 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO 12. In the result, the assessment order is upheld, and the appeal is dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved with the finding recorded

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

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

depreciation for the A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15 was first time filed by the assessee before us and this claim was neither before the A.O. nor any details were submitted earlier. Therefore, in the fitness of thing, we restore the matter to the file of the A.O. to verify the correctness of details furnished by the assessee

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

SHASHI KANT KHETAN,JHUNJHUNU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

Section 144 of Income Tax Act provides best judgment assessment meaning thereby the A.O. is bound to assess a fair income by considering the results of inquiries conducted by him, past history of the assessee and comparative cases. In this case the ld. A.O. has not taken into account past history of the assessee and no any comparative case

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

M/S JINDAL ROADWAYS PVT. LTD.,NASIRABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

97,200 Shri Sanjay Jindal Vs ACIT with one anr. Less: Depreciation as per Companies Act F.Y. 2010-11 10524.29 F.Y. 2011-12 78083.79 F.Y. 2012-13 73976.92 F.Y. 2013-14 60852.23 (223437.23) 06-02-2014 WDV OF FLAT STAFF QUARTER 13,73,762.77 06-02-2014 Sale proceeds 47,00,000.00 31-03-2014 Profit on sale credited

SHRI SANJAY JINDAL,NASIRABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

97,200 Shri Sanjay Jindal Vs ACIT with one anr. Less: Depreciation as per Companies Act F.Y. 2010-11 10524.29 F.Y. 2011-12 78083.79 F.Y. 2012-13 73976.92 F.Y. 2013-14 60852.23 (223437.23) 06-02-2014 WDV OF FLAT STAFF QUARTER 13,73,762.77 06-02-2014 Sale proceeds 47,00,000.00 31-03-2014 Profit on sale credited

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

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

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

depreciable asset falling under the provisions of section 32 of the Act, moreover, the amortization of land is not specified u/s 35D(2) of the Act. The Ld. DR submitted that in the original assessment proceedings no query was raised in this respect. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind on the issue of allowability of such claim

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