SUNIL KUMAR DOSHI,BARMER vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1,, BANGALORE / BARMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Making Assessment, Which Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of The Present Proceedings. 2. A. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 62,641/- Made By The Ld. Ao In 143(1) Order On Account Of Depreciation Claimed. B. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble

depreciation attributable to taxable income. Accordingly, the AO is directed to delete the addition attributable to taxable income received from

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

depreciation of Rs. 51,77,474/-. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the law the ld. CIT (A) had erred by admitting additional evidence without granted requisite opportunity to the Assessing Officer. First, we deal with the appeal in ITA No. 30/Jodh/2020. M/s. Wagad Construction Co. & M/s. Wagad Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. Ground

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

income in all the years. The only exception was in Assessment Year 2014-15, where an addition of Rs.2,48,131/- was made on account of additional depreciation

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCITL CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

income in all the years. The only exception was in Assessment Year 2014-15, where an addition of Rs.2,48,131/- was made on account of additional depreciation

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

income in all the years. The only exception was in Assessment Year 2014-15, where an addition of Rs.2,48,131/- was made on account of additional depreciation

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

income in all the years. The only exception was in Assessment Year 2014-15, where an addition of Rs.2,48,131/- was made on account of additional depreciation

M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Briefly, the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity, stated to be engaged in the activity of purchase of zircon sand, its grinding//crushing and sale. As stated by the Assessing Officer, zircon sand is supplied to the assessee by M/s. Indian Rare Earths Ltd., Chavara (Kerala

ACIT, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH P.LTD., UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Briefly, the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity, stated to be engaged in the activity of purchase of zircon sand, its grinding//crushing and sale. As stated by the Assessing Officer, zircon sand is supplied to the assessee by M/s. Indian Rare Earths Ltd., Chavara (Kerala

ACIT, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH P. LTD., UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Briefly, the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity, stated to be engaged in the activity of purchase of zircon sand, its grinding//crushing and sale. As stated by the Assessing Officer, zircon sand is supplied to the assessee by M/s. Indian Rare Earths Ltd., Chavara (Kerala

ACIT, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH P.LTD., UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Briefly, the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity, stated to be engaged in the activity of purchase of zircon sand, its grinding//crushing and sale. As stated by the Assessing Officer, zircon sand is supplied to the assessee by M/s. Indian Rare Earths Ltd., Chavara (Kerala

M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Briefly, the facts relating to this issue are, the assessee is a resident corporate entity, stated to be engaged in the activity of purchase of zircon sand, its grinding//crushing and sale. As stated by the Assessing Officer, zircon sand is supplied to the assessee by M/s. Indian Rare Earths Ltd., Chavara (Kerala

DR. MANISH CHHAPARWAL ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

depreciation if any income remains that income can only be taxed in the hands of the appellant, Further there was no justification in making such addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. SUNCITY METALS AND TUBES PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, HonʼBle & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

depreciation on goodwill is justified, and they request that it be allowed. Further, the appellant argues that the Assessing Officer erroneously took the returned income at Rs. 16,41,69,103/- instead of the correct returned income of Rs. 14,09,89,472/-. This error led to an apparent addition

THE LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELSPRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PCIT,CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

addition to the total income was made. The ld. AO also disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,18,44,224/- on its borrowed capital as the same was considered as not incurred for the purpose of business of the assessee and the claim was thus disallowed. The ld. AO also disallowed

M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

addition is confirmed under section 36(1)(va) in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, amount paid by the assessee during the relevant AYs be directed to be allowed under section 37(1) of the Act.” 5. We have given a thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and perused materials on record. We have also applied our mind

M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

addition is confirmed under section 36(1)(va) in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, amount paid by the assessee during the relevant AYs be directed to be allowed under section 37(1) of the Act.” 5. We have given a thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and perused materials on record. We have also applied our mind

MAHADEVIA CHARITABLE TRUST,GANDHINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEAL UDAIPUR -2 , UDAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

depreciation vis-a-vis application of income as per mandate after allowing due opportunity of being heard. The Ld. DR on the other hand has no objection to the request of the assessee. 6. Having considered the facts of the case and perusal of the record, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has not appraised the reply filed

MAHADEVIA CHARITABLE TRUST,GANDHINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

depreciation vis-a-vis application of income as per mandate after allowing due opportunity of being heard. The Ld. DR on the other hand has no objection to the request of the assessee. 6. Having considered the facts of the case and perusal of the record, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has not appraised the reply filed