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

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.

depreciation u/s 32 or section 57. 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

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

154 taxmann.com 142 (SC) where the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal of the revenue for the ground that the assessee has produced all the relevant documents before the Ld.AO and the Ld.AO had taken one possible view out of two and assumption of jurisdiction by Principal CIT under section 263 which is erroneous but High Court

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

depreciation or any of allowances as the case may be, for the year concerned.’ The ld. CIT(A) has observed that the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and the reasons so recorded were duly communicated to the appellant. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) was 11 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt

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

depreciation or any of allowances as the case may be, for the year concerned.’ The ld. CIT(A) has observed that the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and the reasons so recorded were duly communicated to the appellant. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) was 11 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt

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

depreciation or any of allowances as the case may be, for the year concerned.’ The ld. CIT(A) has observed that the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and the reasons so recorded were duly communicated to the appellant. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) was 11 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt

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

depreciation or any of allowances as the case may be, for the year concerned.’ The ld. CIT(A) has observed that the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and the reasons so recorded were duly communicated to the appellant. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) was 11 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt

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

depreciation or any of allowances as the case may be, for the year concerned.’ The ld. CIT(A) has observed that the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and the reasons so recorded were duly communicated to the appellant. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) was 11 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt

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

depreciation or any of allowances as the case may be, for the year concerned.’ The ld. CIT(A) has observed that the AO had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and the reasons so recorded were duly communicated to the appellant. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) was 11 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt

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.”

154 on 26.4.2018 rectifying the income to Rs. 35,87,112/-. 3. The assessee during the year had sold certain industrial land, factory building and agriculture land. On sale of land being long term capital gain was shown, and on factory building and plant and machinery being depreciable asset the computation of gain on transfer of such asset was made

ANKUR NAHAR,BHILWARA vs. CIT/ ITO, WARD-2, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20

section 36(1) (viia) of the Act. The assessee filed an appeal with the ground that assessee is eligible for depreciation amount of I.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 3 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Rs.3,69,595/-. As per the assessee, in the tax audit report and in computation wrongly claimed the depreciation amount of Rs.132,525/-. The depreciation to the extent

M/S. M.M. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ,CHURU. vs. ITO, WARD-2,, CHURU.

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

154 of the Act, remained pending, assessee proceeded to file the present appeal, seeking condonation of delay on this account. Considering the Page 2 of 6 ` ITA- 386/JODH/2018 M.M. Construction Company submissions made by the assessee and as observed by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the aforesaid grounds raised by the assessee have not been adjudicated upon

MITHILA DRUGS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradmithila Drugs Pvt.Ltd., Vs Acit, F-70, Road No.2, Circle-1, 102A, Mewar Industrial Area, Aaykar Bhawan, Sub Madri, Udaipur-313003. City Centre, Savina, Udaipur-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaccm6767B Assessee By None (W/S) Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 22/03/2023 Date Of 23/03/2023 Pronouncement

Depreciation loss (Rs.) 1. 2011-12 3385234 1556932 2. 2012-13 8729794 1519756 3. 2013-14 864240 -- 4. 2014-15 823102 -- Total 13802370 3076508 5. 2015-16 1584389 464458 Gross Total 14266828 4660897 3. That being aggrieved from the such unspeaking order passed u/s 143(3) , applicant preferred appeal before the CIT(A) taking above ground of appeal . However

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

ARAVALI TRADING COMPANY,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, NAGAUR

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradaravali Trading Company, Vs Ito, 154, Near Bus Stand, Ward-1, Nagour Merta City, Nagaur, (Rajasthan) Rajasthan-341510 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfa7735M Assessee By Shri Kishan Goyal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of 21/03/2023 Pronouncement

154, Near Bus Stand, Ward-1, Nagour Merta City, Nagaur, (Rajasthan) Rajasthan-341510 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABFA7735M Assessee By Shri Kishan Goyal, CA Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, JCIT DR Date of hearing 20/03/2023 Date of 21/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M.: The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 18.07.2022 passed