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

section are duly\ncomplied, they are:\ni). The original order must be erroneous in law; and\nii). The order should be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.\n2. The assessee through its submissions and replies dated:\n• 20.10.2023 (Page No. 7-9 of Order of PCIT dated 20-03-2024),\n• 04.01.2024(Page

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSADY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDSINCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDSINCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

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

COLUMBUS OVERSEAS LLP,16, RAJA PARK, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DAS ROAD, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

186 iii. Taksheel Solutions Limited Vs. ACIT - ITA No.1768/Hyd/2012 iv. M/s Trinity Infra Venture Ltd Vs. ACIT ITA N90.403/Hyd/2021 v. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd Vs. CIT (1992)196 ITR 406 (Bombay) vi. Resolve Salvage & Fine Ind P. Ltd Vs. DCIT ITA No. 841/Mum/2019 order dt. 18/4/2022 In the above cases, it has been held that payment of interest on TDS

DALAS BIOTECH LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

186 of enclosed for reference Paper-book Retention and Closure of FCNR Deposits Retention Period: The FCNR deposits were retained with the aforementioned bank until 13.02.2009. On closure, the bank credited the following amounts to the OD account: o GBP Rs. 1,20,92,383/- from FNCR No. 10483321000022 o USD Rs. 67,67,856/- from FNCR No. 10483321000015 Banker

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

186 (Delhi) has observed as under (relevant extracts produced): • The action of the income-tax authority of denying immunity from penalty initiated under section 270A for misreporting of income was not only erroneous but also arbitrary and bereft of any reason as it was not specified in the penalty notice whether it is the case of 'under-reporting' or 'misreporting