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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfilment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable

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

SHREE NAVKAR REALINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of This Appeal.”

iii), 2(b)(iv) & 2(b)(v) as per this office notice for hearing dated 29.12.2020. Thus, it appears that the assessee has nothing to offer as regard the issue of disproportionate allotment of shares. Hence, necessary action is called for in view of the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) / 56(2)(viia). Further, also no explanation has been

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

2)(a)(ii) r.w.s. 491 1)(iii) (e) r.w.s. 47(vi) (vib). 5. Whether the Id. CIT(A) has erred in fact and law by not appreciating that explanation 7 to section 43(1) clearly states that goodwill to the successor company ssall be the same as it would have been if the predecessor company had continued to hold capital

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

14 8. Thus, it can be seen that assessee is a company in which public are not substantially interested. Section 56(2)(viib) of the Act is reproduced for ready reference. 56..... (2)..... (viib) where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation of Rs 5,88,10,437/- out of available unabsorbed balance of Rs 14,22,06,252/-.) and paid tax on MAT. Assessee had paid tax on MAT on the book profit of Rs 8,35,79,797/-. The case was selected for Scrutiny and accordingly notice u/s 143(2) dtd. 11.08.2018 was issued and duly served upon

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

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/S. SUNIL & COMPANY,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

section 143(3)/254 of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, Circle-01, Jodhpur[ here in after reffered to as “ld. AO”]. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of interest

DCIT,CIRCLE, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. M/S. KANDA EDIBLE OIL P. LTD. , SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwald.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Kanda Edible Oil Pvt. Ltd. Circle, E 173, Udyog Vihar Sriganganagar. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aacck 7754 Q

section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not as per law. He placed reliance on the decisions referred in the order of Ld. CIT(A) (supra). 7. The Ld. D/R relied on the order of AO by arguing that assessee has not filed any evidence linking that own funds have been utilised for giving the interest

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

III or VI-A of the Act. 2. The matter has been examined. Sub section (2A) of section 10 was inserted by the Finance Act, 1992 w.e.f. 1- 4-1993 due to a change in the scheme of taxation of partnership firms. Since assessment year 1993-94, a firm is assessed as such and is liable

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

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

14. Before us, the ld. D/R supported the order of the Assessing Officer. 15. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has reiterated the submissions as made before the ld. CIT (A) as under :- “ 26.1 The Ld. AO erred in Law and fact of the case by disallowing additional depreciation of Rs. 5177474 claimed on new plant