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

iii) If the words are ambiguous and open to two interpretations, the benefit of interpretation is given to the subject and there is nothing unjust in a taxpayer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch him on account of the legislature's failure to express itself clearly.” The Pune Bench of ITAT in the case of CemetileIndustries

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 32(1)(iia) of the Act on the additions in new plant and machinery installed during the year relating to Manufacturing of Ready Mix Concrete. 26.3 The above facts has been accepted by in a similar case additional depreciation has been allowed by Delhi Tribunal on RMC plant in case of YFC Projects

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. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

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

26—03—2014 which got served upon assessee on dated 28—03—2014. Assessment was completed and the AO made disallowance of Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that

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

26—03—2014 which got served upon assessee on dated 28—03—2014. Assessment was completed and the AO made disallowance of Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that

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

26—03—2014 which got served upon assessee on dated 28—03—2014. Assessment was completed and the AO made disallowance of Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that

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

26—03—2014 which got served upon assessee on dated 28—03—2014. Assessment was completed and the AO made disallowance of Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that

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

26—03—2014 which got served upon assessee on dated 28—03—2014. Assessment was completed and the AO made disallowance of Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended 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

26—03—2014 which got served upon assessee on dated 28—03—2014. Assessment was completed and the AO made disallowance of Rs.78,61,442/- against standard assets (inclusive of sub-standard assets) and; Rs. 12,30,236/- u/s 14A of the Act. 3.1 At the time of hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended 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

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

depreciation was in order. Your kind attention is also invited towards the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court at Page nos. 772-773 in the case of Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills vs Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax IR 1955 SC 176, (1954) 26 ITR 765 SC, 19551 SCR 952 stated as under: "Business" as defined in section

ASHOK PANWAR HUF,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

26 are extracted below:- achieve the predetermined objectives. "10. Show cause notice and reply of the assessee 10.1 In view of the details presented as above, the assessee was given a show cause notice in which he was required to explain as to why on the basis of the evidences presented to him, the Long Term Capital Gain shown

M/S. PYROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 263 of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 2 ITA 3/JODH/2021 PYEROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT LTD VS PR. CIT, UDAIPUR 1. That the Impugned order u/s 263 of the Act dated 18.02.2020 and notice u/s 263 are bad in law and on facts of the case and hence the same may kindly

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

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

depreciation was being claimed. The assessee has been claiming b/f losses for A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17. This also establishes the independent identity of the depositor. (iii) The perusal of ledger account reveals that there was opening balance as on 1/4/2016 of Rs. 5,00,000/-. In other words, the depositor was having a deposit