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.

Section 263 to revise the assessment order. This ruling applies even if it is alleged that the AO did not examine certain aspects, such as the books of account or the share trading transactions conducted by the assessee through demat accounts, during the assessment proceedings. Moreover, we note that the assessee had claimed depreciation related to hotel business & running

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 related to hotel business & running the resort “Village Osiyan”. The income is declared under the head business & profession. The factual issue is fully covered the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chennai Properties & Investments Ltd. V. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 673. Considering the other issue, the assessee’s plea is that in Clause

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

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

section or re-compute loss or the 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

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

section or re-compute loss or the 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

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

section or re-compute loss or the 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

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

section or re-compute loss or the 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

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

section or re-compute loss or the 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

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

section or re-compute loss or the 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

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

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

34,358/- out of various expenses made by the AO in absence of verification. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in holding the activity of ready mix concrete to be manufacturing and hence allowing additional depreciation of Rs. 51,77,474/-. 4. On the facts and circumstances

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

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

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

section 10(1) of 1922 Act – Expenditure by way of salary and bonus to staff, maintenance of car and travelling expenses for the purpose of earning such income, therefore allowable as business expenditure.” b. RAM MURTI SOOD vs. ITO (1982) 14 TTJ (CHD) 352 Business Expenditure—Allowability of deduction—Personal car used by assessee partner for business of firm—Assessee

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.”

depreciation and expenses etc. In this regard we mention that the case of assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS. The Ld. AO has duly examined the subject matter in terms of reasonability, creditworthiness and reliability of subject matter hence it cannot be said the order passed is erroneous. 8. Copy of Bank Statement is enclosed herewith as Annexure

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

34 Nitesh Mundra 14 Sunil Ranka 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