INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SOUTH, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH), UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the said demand by stating that the VFPMCs are not contractors under Section 194C, as they are formed under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and function as self-help groups for forest conservation and development. The payments made to VFPMCs are not contract payments but are reimbursements for work done under the joint forest management policy of the State Government.

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

HARMONY PLASTICS PVT.LTD., ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad180/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) M/S. Harmony Plastics Pvt Ltd. V The Acit S F-335-339, Bhamashah Industrial Circle-1 Area, Kaladwas, Udaipur Uddaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch 5399 D

34 taxmann.com 123 (Chennai-Trib) held that in terms of clause (iia) of Section 32(1), additional depreciation is available in year in which machinery is new and first put to use and not for any succeeding year. The facts of this case were that the assessee had claimed additional depreciation on certain machinery other than those were acquired during

SANJU SONI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

14. In view of the above findings, both the appeals deserve to be allowed

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

depreciation as specified in the said sub-section. The first proviso to section 115BAC states that the option exercised by the assessee shall be invalid, if the assessee fails to satisfy the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2). In this way, said failure is the only prescription in law for treating the option to have been invalidly exercised. Sub-section

SANJU SONI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

14. In view of the above findings, both the appeals deserve to be allowed

Bench: Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

depreciation as specified in the said sub-section. The first proviso to section 115BAC states that the option exercised by the assessee shall be invalid, if the assessee fails to satisfy the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2). In this way, said failure is the only prescription in law for treating the option to have been invalidly exercised. Sub-section

SHRI JAITESHWAR SEVA SANSTHAN,JODHPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Us By Challenging The Revisional Order.

10 ITA 344/JODH/2024 Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited addressed, leaving no grounds for invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act. In arriving at this conclusion, we respectfully rely on the judgments in PCIT vs Pramod Kumar Tekriwal (2023) 154 taxmann.com 142 (SC) where the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal of the revenue for the ground that

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK, , JODHPUR

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

10 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. way of reassessment proceedings without any reason to belief of escapement of income based on surmises, therefore, the assessee so framed deserves to be quashed. 3.2 In the present case, the Assessing Officer (AO) has supplied the copy of the reasons recorded to the appellant assessee vide

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

10 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. way of reassessment proceedings without any reason to belief of escapement of income based on surmises, therefore, the assessee so framed deserves to be quashed. 3.2 In the present case, the Assessing Officer (AO) has supplied the copy of the reasons recorded to the appellant assessee vide

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

10 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. way of reassessment proceedings without any reason to belief of escapement of income based on surmises, therefore, the assessee so framed deserves to be quashed. 3.2 In the present case, the Assessing Officer (AO) has supplied the copy of the reasons recorded to the appellant assessee vide

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

10 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. way of reassessment proceedings without any reason to belief of escapement of income based on surmises, therefore, the assessee so framed deserves to be quashed. 3.2 In the present case, the Assessing Officer (AO) has supplied the copy of the reasons recorded to the appellant assessee vide

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

10 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. way of reassessment proceedings without any reason to belief of escapement of income based on surmises, therefore, the assessee so framed deserves to be quashed. 3.2 In the present case, the Assessing Officer (AO) has supplied the copy of the reasons recorded to the appellant assessee vide

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

10 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. way of reassessment proceedings without any reason to belief of escapement of income based on surmises, therefore, the assessee so framed deserves to be quashed. 3.2 In the present case, the Assessing Officer (AO) has supplied the copy of the reasons recorded to the appellant assessee vide

SHRI SEWARAM CHARITABLE TRUST ,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD, EXEMPTION, UDAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

34,89,828/-, Aggrieved to it. the appellant is in present appeal. I have carefully considered the facts of the case in the light of submission made by the appellant as well as the order u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the applicable law in this regard. 6.1. Ground of appeal No. 1: During

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

34 of 1948), or any other fund for the welfare of such employees." 43(b) any sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity or any other fund for the welfare of employees, or"."36.(1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed

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

34 of 1948), or any other fund for the welfare of such employees." 43(b) any sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity or any other fund for the welfare of employees, or"."36.(1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed

SHREE RAM COLLOIDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeshree Ram Colloids Private Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax (1), Jodhpur C-79, Mia, Phase-Ii, Jodhpur- 342 005 Pan: Aakcs5803L Appellant Respondent

10 ITA 344/JODH/2024 Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited addressed, leaving no grounds for invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act. In arriving at this conclusion, we respectfully rely on the judgments in PCIT vs Pramod Kumar Tekriwal (2023) 154 taxmann.com 142 (SC) where the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal of the revenue for the ground that

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

depreciation @ 10.32% subject to depreciation, except depreciation on fixed assets claimed to be added during the year under consideration (i.e. for AY 2016-2017). When revenue challenged that order of the ld. CIT(A) net profit rate of 10.32% was applied net of depreciation means no separate deduction of depreciation was allowable. So, applying that precedent ld. AO noted that

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

depreciation on car of Rs. 21,000/-, Workman and staff welfare expenses of Rs. 1,23,000/- and interest on service tax of Rs. 15,586/-. The ld. CIT(A) has partially allowed the appeal. 5 622/Jodh/2024 & Others Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2017-18 2014-15 28.12.2016 53,48,580/- 5,20,280 Wages discussed in assessment order