AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

disallow the claimed capital expenditure of Rs.5,25,52,586/-. Since, the assessee was hit by provision of section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 the total taxable income comes to Rs.6,71,88,566/- (Rs.1,46,35,981/- + Rs.5,25,52,586/-), therefore, the assessment done at NIL income by the AO is erroneous as the final computation

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. The ld. A/R placing reliance on the various judicial pronouncement submitted that no addition can be made either under section 41(1) or under section 68 of the Act as the AO himself did not specify the section under which he intended to make the addition. The ld. A/R further

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

198 CTR ALL 260 after considering the principle laid down by various Hon’ble Courts held that:- “ 14. In view of the above principle of law laid down by the various Courts, it is settled that the notice under Section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional notice and unless a proper and valid notice is issued and served, jurisdiction

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

198 CTR (All) 595  CIT vs. REFERIGERATION & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del) : (2000) 163 CTR (Del) 498  CIT vs. OSWAL WOOLLEN MILLS LTD (2006) 206 CTR (P & h) 141 11. On the contrary, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee is not having intention to revive the business. The Ld CIT(A) has noticed that the assessee

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

198 CTR (All) 595  CIT vs. REFERIGERATION & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD (2001) 247 ITR 12 (Del) : (2000) 163 CTR (Del) 498  CIT vs. OSWAL WOOLLEN MILLS LTD (2006) 206 CTR (P & h) 141 11. On the contrary, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee is not having intention to revive the business. The Ld CIT(A) has noticed that the assessee