SHREE SAMARTH ELECTRICALS PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

depreciation. However, considering the nature of these expenses, as these expenses will give enduring benefit to the assessee, therefore, these are capital in nature, therefore assessing officer has failed to examine the nature of these expenditure, hence GojijyaBhikhubhai and Others ITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024 (AY :2018-19) 14 order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous as well

SHREE SAMARTH SWITCHGEAR AND TRANSMISSION PVT LTD,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

depreciation. However, considering the nature of these expenses, as these expenses will give enduring benefit to the assessee, therefore, these are capital in nature, therefore assessing officer has failed to examine the nature of these expenditure, hence GojijyaBhikhubhai and Others ITA No.609, 610 and 612/RJT/2024 (AY :2018-19) 14 order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous as well

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

depreciation on cars. We have confirmed similar disallowance in the Asstt.Years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. Possibility of personal user of telephone, car etc. could not be ruled out, and the ld.CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the disallowance. 49. In the assessee’s appeal, no other grounds remain to be adjudicated, hence, we treat this appeal as partly

UMA COTTON & OIL INDUSTRIES,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), RANGE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.13/Rjt/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009

depreciation. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under: 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions. Learned CIT’s only reason in exercising his Section 263 jurisdiction is that assessee's additional income is not liable for any corresponding expenditure pertaining to partner's remuneration and interest hereinabove. He therefore directs the Assessing Officer