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

disallowed the claim of additional depreciation. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the amendment in clause (iia) of sub-section 1 of section 32

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)

32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed. From the perusal of the above provision, it can be concluded that the company who has opted to file its return of income u/s 115BAA of the Act cannot take the deduction of 10AA of the Act. Furthermore, according

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)

iia) of clause (24) of section 2,] [or which is of the nature referred to in sub-section (4A) of section 11,] tax shall be charged on so much of the relevant income as is not exempt under section 11 [or section 12], as if the relevant income not so exempt were the income of an association of persons : [Provided

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalrashleela Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., C-5, Krishna Balram, Calgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017. Pan No.: Aadcr2594J ...... Appellant Vs.

disallowance of donation claimed under Section 35(1)(ii) amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000. The action of the Ld. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by allowing the claim under Section 35(1) (ii). 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

iia) defines the word income in respect of charitable or religious trust as under : “Income includes voluntary contribution received by a trust created wholly or partly for religious or charitable purposes or by an institution established wholly or partly for such purposes etc.” Section 11(1)(d) defines corpus of the trust as under: “Subject to provisions of sections

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

32(1)(iia) of the Act during the course of original assessment proceedings under 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

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowed the interest in accordance with the provision of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and not as per provision of section 57(iii) of the Act as the assessee has already offered the income under the head income from business Sh. Magendra Singh Rathore or profession. The provision of section both these sections are extracted for the sake

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

32(1)(iia) of the Act on addition of Rs.2,30,73,318/- in plant and machinery and as per decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s Lucky Minerals Pvt. Ltd 2001 the business of mining & trading of marble block does not cover under the business of manufacture and production of any article or things, therefore

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)

32,352) Book Profit as per section 115JB6,17,53,920 AO added provision for bad & doubtful debts/advances of Rs.15,85,10,128/- written back and depreciation of Rs.269,10,85,274/- to the book profit computed 20 M/s Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. by the assessee by holding that deduction for provision for bad & doubtful debts/advances written back

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

iia) any asset, not being an investment or deposit in any of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11, where such asset is not held by the trust or institution, otherwise than in any of the forms or modes specified in sub-section (5) of section 11, after the expiry of one year from

M/S G.D. TAMBI & SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in

1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38 ; (iia) in the case of income in the nature of family pension, a deduction of a sum equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent of such income or fifteen thousand rupees, whichever is less: 70[Provided that in a case where income

M/S G.D. TAMBI & SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1) and (2) of section 32 and subject to the provisions of section 38 ; (iia) in the case of income in the nature of family pension, a deduction of a sum equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent of such income or fifteen thousand rupees, whichever is less: 70[Provided that in a case where income

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

disallowance made 7 RAJ KUMAR KANDOI VS ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR by the learned AO was totally unjustified and illegal. The Bench refers the Section 57 as under:- Deductions from 'Income from Other Sources' [Section 57] – The income chargeable to tax under this head 'Income from Other Sources' is computed after making the following deductions: (i) In the case

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the period of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded: “The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending with the date on which the report

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. PRAKAS CHAND SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

iia) and (iii) of s. 132(5) and obligated him to release the remaining seized assets. In this background, the Hon'ble High Court, on the facts of the case before it, held that unless an order under s. 132(5) of the Act is passed, the AO could not direct that the assets seized be adjusted towards advance

PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

iia) and (iii) of s. 132(5) and obligated him to release the remaining seized assets. In this background, the Hon'ble High Court, on the facts of the case before it, held that unless an order under s. 132(5) of the Act is passed, the AO could not direct that the assets seized be adjusted towards advance

PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

iia) and (iii) of s. 132(5) and obligated him to release the remaining seized assets. In this background, the Hon'ble High Court, on the facts of the case before it, held that unless an order under s. 132(5) of the Act is passed, the AO could not direct that the assets seized be adjusted towards advance

PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result assessee’s appeal being ITA No

iia) and (iii) of s. 132(5) and obligated him to release the remaining seized assets. In this background, the Hon'ble High Court, on the facts of the case before it, held that unless an order under s. 132(5) of the Act is passed, the AO could not direct that the assets seized be adjusted towards advance