ACIT, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH P.LTD., UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80IB of the Act. 5. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of Tribunal and the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in assesee’s own case. 6. Learned Departmental Representative, though, agreed with the aforesaid submission of the assessee, however, she relied upon the observations

M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80IB of the Act. 5. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of Tribunal and the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in assesee’s own case. 6. Learned Departmental Representative, though, agreed with the aforesaid submission of the assessee, however, she relied upon the observations

M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80IB of the Act. 5. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of Tribunal and the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in assesee’s own case. 6. Learned Departmental Representative, though, agreed with the aforesaid submission of the assessee, however, she relied upon the observations

ACIT, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. TIRUPATI MICROTECH P.LTD., UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Years: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aanpn5358H Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, Versus M/S. Tirupati Microtech P. Ltd. Udaipur. 1604/1610, Village Thoor, Udaipur. Pan: Aaact5483D Appellant) (Respondent)

section 80IB of the Act. 5. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of Tribunal and the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in assesee’s own case. 6. Learned Departmental Representative, though, agreed with the aforesaid submission of the assessee, however, she relied upon the observations

HARMONY PLASTICS PVT.LTD., ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad180/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) M/S. Harmony Plastics Pvt Ltd. V The Acit S F-335-339, Bhamashah Industrial Circle-1 Area, Kaladwas, Udaipur Uddaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabch 5399 D

section 32(1)(iia) cannot be allowed. Additonal depreciation itself is only for a new machinery or plant. A claim of additional depreciation as made by the assessee, it allowed, will not be an allowance for a new machinery or plant. Intenton of the Legislature was to give such additional depreciation in the year in which assets

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)

9. Section 115BAC reads as under:- “115BAC. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of this Chapter, the income-tax payable in respect of the total income of a person, being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, for any previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on or after

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)

9. Section 115BAC reads as under:- “115BAC. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of this Chapter, the income-tax payable in respect of the total income of a person, being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, for any previous year relevant to the assessment year beginning on or after

SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

9. In A.Y 2014-15, the assessee has raised one more issue relating disallowance of depreciation claim of Rs. 52.48 lakhs. AO noticed that the assessee has not carried out any business activity during the year relevant A.Y 2014-15. When questioned, the assessee submitted that it has stopped business activity since the production of electricity has become unviable

SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

9. In A.Y 2014-15, the assessee has raised one more issue relating disallowance of depreciation claim of Rs. 52.48 lakhs. AO noticed that the assessee has not carried out any business activity during the year relevant A.Y 2014-15. When questioned, the assessee submitted that it has stopped business activity since the production of electricity has become unviable

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 u/s 32 or section 57. 9 ITA 344/JODH/2024 Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited 5.4. Having considered facts and circumstances

SATYA NARAYAN DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 43(1) of the Act and depreciation was to be charged accordingly. Therefore, reliance on the above said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is found to be not attracted on the facts of the case. 9

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

9. Section 36 is a deduction provision under the Act. A reading of section 36(1)(va) makes it clear that in respect of any sum received by an assessee from his employees, to which section 2(24)(x) applies, the assessee can get deduction only if such sum is credited to the employees’ accounts in the relevant fund

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

9. Section 36 is a deduction provision under the Act. A reading of section 36(1)(va) makes it clear that in respect of any sum received by an assessee from his employees, to which section 2(24)(x) applies, the assessee can get deduction only if such sum is credited to the employees’ accounts in the relevant fund

BALAJI MARBLES AND TILES PVT LIMITED,KATNI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blebalaji Marbles & Tiles Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle -1, 12 Dunne Market, Bargawan, Udaipur. Jabalpur Road, Madhya Pradesh – 483501. Pan No. Aaccb 4886 C Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca (Virtual) Revenue By Shri P.R. Mirdha, Addl. Cit (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur–2 [Cit(A)], Dated 28.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld Cit Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Rejecting The Books Of Account During Appellate Proceedings. 2. The Ld Cit Appeals Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Enhancing The Addition On Account Of Gp Addition Of Rs 94,24,706/-. 3. The Ld Cit Appeals Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Comparing The Gp Ratio Of Assessee As 2.07% Whereas The Assessee Explained

section 131/ 270A etc. Therefore, as it appears, in absence of specific mention of the CIT(A) u/s 145, prima facie the same cannot be envisaged to empower the CIT(A) to reject the books by substituting his opinion for that of the Assessing Officer. 12. In the present case, again there was no specific defect noticed in the books

MAHADEVIA CHARITABLE TRUST,GANDHINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEAL UDAIPUR -2 , UDAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

depreciation of the assessee afresh as per provisions of Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act with reference to the documentary evidences filed on record in the form of computation of income, income & expenditure A/c for the Financial Year 2009-10 to 2014-15 in support of the claim and acquisition of capital on the issue of application

MAHADEVIA CHARITABLE TRUST,GANDHINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

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

depreciation of the assessee afresh as per provisions of Section 11(6) of the Income Tax Act with reference to the documentary evidences filed on record in the form of computation of income, income & expenditure A/c for the Financial Year 2009-10 to 2014-15 in support of the claim and acquisition of capital on the issue of application

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

depreciation. 9. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The facts noted by the AO, in our considered opinion are sufficient 7 ITA 111 & 112/Jodh/2020 Subhash Chand Jain. Vs ACIT enough to justify the rejection of the books of account. We, therefore, hold that the Ld CIT (A) was justified in upholding the application

SUBHASH CHAND JAIN ,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

depreciation. 9. We have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The facts noted by the AO, in our considered opinion are sufficient 7 ITA 111 & 112/Jodh/2020 Subhash Chand Jain. Vs ACIT enough to justify the rejection of the books of account. We, therefore, hold that the Ld CIT (A) was justified in upholding the application