SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

10A, as the section has been amended and therefore, to comply with the amended provision w.e.f. 01-04-2018. The application dated 13-09-2019 was filed to place on record the amendment made on 04-05-2013 in the objects of the society. 7. On realizing the fact that there was no need of making an application

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT Exemption, Jaipur has grossly erred in invoking Sections 13(1), 13(2)(a) & 13(2)(g) of the Act to allege specified violation in respect of past transactions, which do not fall within the period of registration granted u/s 12A(1)(ac)(i) in Form

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS and to introduce the unaccounted money through bogus sales. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the retail showroom at Jodhpur is approximately 1600 sq. feet in size and it is spread over three stories and there are approximately 9 to 10 employees besides the MOU correspondence. It has also been submitted that there is one billing counter

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

UTKARASH SANASTHA,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

10A and 10AB. Based on the aforementioned circular, the commencement of activities and the delay in filing the application in Form 10AB earlier are to be taken into consideration. 5. Commencement of activities and delay filing of Form 10AB under section 80G(5)(iii) decided by The honorable High Court Of Judicature At Madras in the matter of Sri Nrisimha

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SAMARTH LIFESTYLE RETAILING PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

section 145(3) of the Income tax Act and G.P. rate why should not be taken @37.09% instead of 34.89% shown by you and addition of Rs.45770324/- (37.09-34.89-2.2%@2080469305/-) made to your total income for low net G.P. ratio." 11. The Assessing Officer considered the reply furnished by the assessee to the said show cause notice, and observed

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

TDS is made. ITA 1053/JP/2016_ 26 Shankar Jhalani Vs. ITO 4. It may be noted that second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) inserted by FA, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013 has provided that where an assessee fails to deduct tax on the sum paid to the resident but such resident payee has furnished the return, taken into account such