CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

144B", "Section 263", "Section 194A", "Section 195", "Section 115BBD", "Section 90(2)"], "issues": "1. Whether the PCIT correctly invoked powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether TDS

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

144B, read with section 143, of the Income-tax Act,\n1961 - Faceless assessment - (Personal hearing) - Assessment year 2010-11\nTribunal remitted matter back to Assessing Authority by issuing specific directions\nregarding examining certain claim of assessee - However, Assessing Officer had\nnot complied with categorical and specific directions issued by Tribunal and\npassed impugned assessment order - This order was passed within

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

144B and in accordance with scheme\nenacted by Central Government under section 151A – Whether after introduction\nof 'Faceless Jurisdiction of Income-tax Authorities Scheme, 2022' and 'e-\nAssessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022' it became\nmandatory for revenue to conduct/initiate proceedings pertaining to reassessment\nunder sections 147, 148 and 148A in a faceless manner Held, yes - Whether\nsince

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS of Rs.6,26,680/- was deducted which is reflected in Form 26AS of the appellant. Further, addition of Rs.6,26,68,011/- has resulted in double addition as the appellant has already included the said income in its profit and loss account and paid taxes on it and same cannot be added under section

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS of Rs.6,26,680/- was deducted which is reflected in Form 26AS of the appellant. Further, addition of Rs.6,26,68,011/- has resulted in double addition as the appellant has already included the said income in its profit and loss account and paid taxes on it and same cannot be added under section

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

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

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act. 6.1 In support of the ground so taken the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the said ground being technical in nature is not being pressed in the interest of substantive justice. Hence, the said ground is not being adjudicated. Ground No. 1 of appeal is therefore dismissed. 7. Ground

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

144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act.\n6.1 In support of the ground so taken the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the said ground being technical in nature is not being pressed in the interest of substantive justice. Hence, the said ground is not being adjudicated. Ground No. 1 of appeal is therefore dismissed.\n7. Ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR vs. ALWAR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD., ALWAR

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, [ for short “Act” ] by the National e- Assessment Centre, Delhi [ for short “AO” ]. 2. The appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee were heard together and with the consent of the parties we considered it appropriate to dispose by this consolidated order. 3. The grounds

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is void ab-initio and deserves to be quashed. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,56,453/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained

MAHAVEER OIL DISTRIBUTORS,SHAHPURA JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD BEHROR, BEHROR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [ for short AO]. 2 Mahaveer Oil Distributors vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “Ground 1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law, Ld AO erred in taking action

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

144B on 28.04.2021 determining total income at ₹1,61,38,888/-, after rejecting books u/s 145(3) and estimating income @ 8% of turnover of Rs. 17,97,27,307/- after considering effect of section 115JB. 4. In first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 24.03.2025, mainly holding that the assessee did not file effective submissions

BHAGWATIKRIPA PAPER MILLS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

144B of the Income Tax Act, [Here in after referred as “Act” ] by the NFCA [ for short ld. AO. ]. 2 Bhagwatipripa Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. 2.1 The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1.Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition

KRISHAN PAL SINGH HUF,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

144B of the Income Tax Act, [ for short “Act”] by the National Faceless Assessment Unit [ for short AO ]. 2 Krishan Pal Singh vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. That the appellant humbly reiterates all the facts and grounds of appeal raised before the Ld CIT (Appeals). 2. That the CIT(A) has blindly

MARVEL SUPPORT CONSULTANCY SERVICES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed per ground

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act [ here in after referred to as ‘Act’]. 2. In ITA No. 293/JP/2022, the assessee has taken following grounds in this appeal; “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer allowing TDS

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BHIWADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

TDS of Rs.900).\nThe same information is also available in the system which is pasted below:-\nS.NO TAN\nName of Deductor\nSection\nAmount Paid Credited\nTotal Tax Collected Deposited\nReturn Financial Year\n1 DELS 43946A\nSHIMIZU CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD 194H\n5.55.557\n58,240\n2012-13\n2 DELB08746D\nBERRY DEVELOPERS AND\nINFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED\n194H\n25.52.624\n2.55.262\n2012

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. GOLDENDUNES HEIGHTS LLP, JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act”) dated 21.04.2021 passed by National e- Assessment Centre, Delhi [ for short AO] before him. 2 Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur 2. Revenue assailed order of the ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds : 1. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) was justified