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)

13. 2. Since, the issues involved in these appeals are more or less identical, all these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by a consolidated order, for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 593/Jodh/2014( Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11): 3. In ground No.1, Revenue has challenged the decision of learned first appellate authority in allowing deduction

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)

13. 2. Since, the issues involved in these appeals are more or less identical, all these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by a consolidated order, for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 593/Jodh/2014( Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11): 3. In ground No.1, Revenue has challenged the decision of learned first appellate authority in allowing deduction

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)

13. 2. Since, the issues involved in these appeals are more or less identical, all these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by a consolidated order, for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 593/Jodh/2014( Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11): 3. In ground No.1, Revenue has challenged the decision of learned first appellate authority in allowing deduction

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)

13. 2. Since, the issues involved in these appeals are more or less identical, all these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by a consolidated order, for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 593/Jodh/2014( Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2010-11): 3. In ground No.1, Revenue has challenged the decision of learned first appellate authority in allowing deduction

MADHAV UNIVERSITY,PINDWARA, SIROHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α No.789 &790/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year:2024-25) Madhav University Vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Exemption, Jaipur Pindwara, Madhav Hills, Nh 27, Vpo Bharja, Pindwara, Sirohi Rajasthan-307023 Pan: Aasam7855L Shri Amit Kothari Shri M.K. Jain, Cit(Dr.) Present For Assessee Present For Revenue Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Bench: The Instant Appeals Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption), Jaipur (For Brevity, 'Ld.Cit(E)'] Order Passed Under Section 12Ab Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act') & Order Passed Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act, Date Of Orders 30/09/2024. 2. Act Both The Appeals Related To Registration Under Section 12Ab& 80G Of The

depreciation indicates profits, and therefore in view of high margins, benefit of registration cannot be granted. f. The Id. CIT(E) has erred in observing that the appellant has given benefits to specified persons by purchasing luxury items. 9. The Id. CIT(E) had erred in observing that change in fee structure was made therefore it is violation

SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

13. We heard rival contentions and perused the record. Four significant contentions have been raised before us by Ld A.R. First, it was submitted that the assessee has not completely stopped the business as presumed by the tax authorities. If that is the case, there was no necessity for the assessee to maintain establishment and incur expenses including interest expenses

SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

13. We heard rival contentions and perused the record. Four significant contentions have been raised before us by Ld A.R. First, it was submitted that the assessee has not completely stopped the business as presumed by the tax authorities. If that is the case, there was no necessity for the assessee to maintain establishment and incur expenses including interest expenses

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

13 of the Assessment Order. The counsel has referred to the provision of Section 11(6) which reads as under: “In this section where any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart for application, then, for such purposes the income shall be determined without any deduction or allowance by way of depreciation

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

13 of the Assessment Order. The counsel has referred to the provision of Section 11(6) which reads as under: “In this section where any income is required to be applied or accumulated or set apart for application, then, for such purposes the income shall be determined without any deduction or allowance by way of depreciation

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

SATYA NARAYAN DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 43(1) of the Act and on the whole of the cost of windmill, the depreciation claim is eligible which has been rightly claimed and allowed by the Assessing officer after due examination and verification in light of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Saurashtra Cements (supra) and Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case

NAVKAR WOLLENS PRIVATE LIMITED,BIKANER vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blenavkar Woollens Private Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Rani Bazar, Bikaner, H.O. Income Tax, Circle – 3 Bikaner, Bikaner Bikaner - 334001 Pan No. Aabcn 9287 G Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit-Dr & Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/Cit(A)] Dated 30.07.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2014-15 Challenging Therein Sustaining The Addition Of Rs. 2,34,04,480/- On Account Of Difference Between The Fair Market Value & The Issue Price Of The Equity Shares By Questioning The Method Of Valuation.

depreciation on solar plant is irrelevant. Section 56(2)(viib) specifically deals with the premium received over FMV on the issuance of shares and treats such excess as taxable income regardless of the company’s overall profitability or losses. The learned CIT (A) has held that appellant has not succeeded in discharging its burden to proof to justify

THAR HEAT TRANSFER EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. ,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavthar Heat Transfer Equipments Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur. B-13 To 16, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aacct 7832 L Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca & Shri Abhinav Kothari, Ca Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Jodhpur Dated 20/03/2020 For A.Y. 2015-16 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised: “1. The Ld. Pr. Cit Has Erred In Invoking Section 263 & The Setting Aside Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Is Bad In Law & Bad On Facts. The Order Made U/S 143(3) Cannot Be Said To Erroneous Or Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Was Made After Duly Examining The Issue Relating To Capital Gains & The Said Order Cannot Be Said To Be Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Or Revenue. The Allocation Of Value Of Sale Of Land Was On The Basis Of Valuation Adopted By The Stamp Authorities & Was Also Verifiable. The Ld. Pr. Cit Had Erred In Observing That The Appellant Had Taken The Higher Value Of Agriculture Land. 3. The Appellant Crave Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter, Or Modify Any Of The Ground Of Appeal On Or Before Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

13,68,000/- Depreciation each year 2280X 600  Stone Patti 1 % 8,36,800/- Depreciation each year  Tinsheet 20718 fts. X .0929 28,87,053/- + 1924.70 X 1500  Boundary Wall 333 Running 99,900/- mts. X 300 3,79,100/- 48,12,643/-  Less Depreciation Total Fair Market Value 4,01,00,000/- 6. The assessee also submitted details

M/S. BHARAT CERA GLASS LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-3, BHILWARA

In the result, both the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S Bharat Cera Glass Limited, Income Tax Officer, 1-B-24, Shashtri Nagar, Vs Ward-3, Bhilwara Bhilwara Pan: Aaecb4366K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

13,52,000/- instead of Rs. 14,63,000/- done by the AO. Aggrieved by the same, assessee filed appeal before us. Before us, no new facts have been produced by the assessee. We have studied the balance-sheet submitted by the assessee. It is a fact that assessee is a company in which public are not substantially interested

NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation claimed thereon. the assessing authority was bound to consider the Explanation. Simply because the facts have been disclosed by the assessee, it does not give immunity from revisional jurisdiction which the Commissioner can exercise under section 263 and as such even in a case where the facts have been disclosed by the assessee to the assessing authority

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

13—03— 2014 vide office letter No. 513. Where the Reasons were recorded as below:— 1. 'On examination of assessment record, it is found that assessee have debited Rs. 38.01,442/— on account of provisions toward standard assets and Rs. 43,98,484/— on account of provisions for deprecation on NSLR investment in the profit and loss account

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

13—03— 2014 vide office letter No. 513. Where the Reasons were recorded as below:— 1. 'On examination of assessment record, it is found that assessee have debited Rs. 38.01,442/— on account of provisions toward standard assets and Rs. 43,98,484/— on account of provisions for deprecation on NSLR investment in the profit and loss account