VIRENDRA PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

144C(1) for the\nassessee (and similarly for the wife of the assessee) on 30.03.2024, proposing\nthe above additions. These draft orders were duly served on 31.03.2024.\n\nIX. Dispute Resolution Panel\na. The assessee, as well as his wife, filed objections against the draft orders\nbefore Id. Dispute Resolution Panel - 1, New Delhi, in accordance with Section\n144C

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

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

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

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

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)

6,96,12,33,525/- under provisions of section 115JB of the Act. The case was taken up for scrutiny. In view of specified domestic transactions, a Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. reference under section 92CA was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO passed an order under section 92CA(3) dated 25.10.2017 of the Act proposing various upward

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)

144C(13) is unsustainable in law. (c) not pointing out any discrepancy or incorrectness in the submission and documentary evidence filed in course of proceeding u/s 263. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PPCIT has erred by holding that employee’s contribution to PF amounting to Rs.2,59,71,570/- should

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

144C dated 14.3.2014, the Assessing Officer has determined the total income at Rs.7,84,12,208/- as there was a disallowance under Section 32 (1) (iia) of Rs.3,53,65,893/- being additional depreciation and an addition of Rs.3,69,463/- due to transfer pricing adjustments. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same since the additional depreciation under Section

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

In the result, the ground No

C. Bafna (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 16/12/2020 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 05/01/2021 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-1, Jaipur dated 23.01.2019 wherein

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

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