INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. GOENKA JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, Ground No. 2 raised by the revenue is also dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalito, Ward 2(1), Jaipur ...... Appellant

loss and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 1,07,09,895/- are to be first set off against business

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

GUMPTION LABS FINSERVE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. ITO WARD -2(2) , KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

losses & depreciation and set aside on this ground which he ought to decide. That there are pending losses & depreciation of Rs.28

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

set off from business loss as assessee has filed the return after due date prescribed under the Income Tax Act. 5) That the Commissioner Appeals has grossly erred in holding and sustaining the finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has shown business loss of 10,59,845/- in its computation of total income but it is not deductible

FATEHPURIA TRANSFORMERS AND WITCHGEARS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

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

depreciation and business loss of power generation unit were set off against other income/other business income in earlier years itself

DYNAMIC POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

set off of any loss carried forward or depreciation from any earlier assessment year, if such loss or depreciation is attributable

NATWAR LAL SHARDA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

loss and depreciation were claimed under the head "Business and profession", therefore order passed by ld. PCIT deserves to be set

MODERN INSULATORS LIMITED,ABU ROAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CIRCLE 6 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

set off of current year's loss & brought forward business losses & depreciation of M/s Modern Terry Towels Ltd. in spite

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. SHAKUNTLAM COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

set off of brought forward\nbusiness loss and depreciation. In the profit and loss a/c assessee has\ndeclared sales at Rs.1

GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT-CIRCLE-EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

depreciation as well as investment/purchase of fixed assets towards application of fund as allowed u/s 11, however, at the same time the assessee intends to immune the funds received as development fees from the tax liability by directly taking them to the balance sheet in the form of development reserve. 11 GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR VS DCIT-CIRCLE

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)

loss for the relevant previous year prepared under sub-section (2), as increased by— (a) (b) … (g) the amount of depreciation, (h) (i) the amount or amounts set

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6.\nUnder the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing the set off of losses

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6.\nUnder the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing the set off of losses

DCIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6.\nUnder the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing the set off of losses

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6.\nUnder the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing the set off of losses

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the set off of losses

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6.\nUnder the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing the set off of losses

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's income is found to be not chargeable\nunder the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions\nmade, irrespective of the head of income

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant.\n6.\nUnder the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred\nin not allowing the set off of losses

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE , JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

depreciation alternatively claimed by the Appellant. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the set off of losses