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

49,17,898 + 5,25,16,291= 8,74,34,189 were squared up after 31.03.2014 against supply of Assets & Equipments as per Ledger a/c enclosed again for ready reference. Total 8,85,08,618 Considering the facts of the case and above details, I find force in the appellant's claim. It may be noted that all these details

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

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 asset witch is zero in this

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

depreciation on motor vehicles owned by the assessee against the income received from partnership firm which is assessable to tax under the head Profits and gains of business or profession. 7.6 At this juncture, it is interesting to note that, at per Para No. 1.4 of the written submissions (supra), the assessee stated that he is a partner in certain

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

49 Varaha Infra Ltd. 363,300) to KM 450.800 (Design KM 445.853) under NHDP III in the state of Haryana on Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer (DBFOT) Basis Notice by the concessionaire for payment of compensation on account of delay events, additional works/change of scope and breach of contract by the authority. In the light of that facts furnished

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

49,547/ Current Rs. 2,75,000/- assets Rs. 98,13,182/ Total assets; (a) Rs. 2,31,37,729/- Long term liabilities Rs. 5,20,000/- Current liabilities excluding provision For taxation Rs. 79,66,703/ (961703+15000+990000) Creditors+ Audit Fees+ Outstanding Payable) Total liabilities Rs. 84,86,703/- Fair market value per share

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