GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

Section 263 of the Act. (e) issuing the notice u/s 263 by broadly looking at financial statements, ITR, Tax Audit report, Form 10CCB etc. without conducting any enquiry or verification of its own to hold that assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) is unsustainable in law. (f) not pointing out any discrepancy or incorrectness in the submission

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)

144C read with section 143(3) of the Act on 23.02.2018 by making various disallowances/additions to the returned income of the assessee as under :- - Reduction in claim u/s 80IA on power undertakings on account of transfer pricing adjustment of power (Rs. 2,89,07,63,321/-, - Reduction in claim u/s 80IA on Solid Waste Management System on account of transfer

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

VISHNO MOTWANI,AJMER vs. CIRCLE(INTTAX), JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 25

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

144C(1) of the Act, proposing addition of Rs. 2,70,00,000/-, u/s 69 of the Act, as regards investment found to have been made by him in purchase of time deposits from Bank of India and because said investment remained unexplained by the assessee. 4. The details of the FDRs, as available in the impugned assessment order, read

AJAY AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. CIT (IT), DELHI-1, CIT(IT) DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS deducted by the buyer of the property. The ld. AO during the assessment proceedings, on perusal of computation of total income for the A. Y. 2018-19 relevant to F. Y.2017-18 noticed that some payments were made in F.Y 2012-13. However, in the computation of total income, for the purpose of indexation, cost inflation index has been taken

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

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80- IB of the Act. This view was taken by the Courts in the following cases: • Income-tax Officer-Ward

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

144C passed by Ld. AO as invalid and void ab initio since it was not passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 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

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

144C passed by Ld. AO as invalid and void ab initio since it was not passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 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

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

144C(1) of the Act issued with reference to 263 order which was passed on 28.03.2024. 6. Further the legal counsel had advised to the authorized representative that order passed u/s 263 of the Act is contrary to provision of law and also to be challenged before the Hon’ble ITAT Bench as such facts had been communicated