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

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

24 Shree Siddhi Vinayak Induction Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur It is to be noted that during the survey, no document/evidence of any sort whatsoever was found and/or recorded which indicates / prove any out of books sale or clandestine removal of material by the assessee. In the light of facts and records and submissions, there was no major difference

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

24 Shree Siddhi Vinayak Induction Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur It is to be noted that during the survey, no document/evidence of any sort whatsoever was found and/or recorded which indicates / prove any out of books sale or clandestine removal of material by the assessee. In the light of facts and records and submissions, there was no major difference

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

24 Shree Siddhi Vinayak Induction Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur It is to be noted that during the survey, no document/evidence of any sort whatsoever was found and/or recorded which indicates / prove any out of books sale or clandestine removal of material by the assessee. In the light of facts and records and submissions, there was no major difference

ACIT (TDS), JAIPUR vs. GNADHI VIDHYA MANDIR, CHURU

ix) Apart from the above, it is submitted that there is nothing incriminating in the statement of study centres so as to allege that study centre is providing either technical or managerial services to the appellant. It is submitted on the contrary the learned Assessing officer has framed his questions so as to assume that services have been provided

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 263 of the Act\nand, in turn, will cause serious unintended hardship to the tax payer\nconcerned for no fault on his part. Apparently, this is not intended by the\nExplanation. Howsoever wide the scope of Explanation 2(a) may be, its\nlimits are implicit in it. It is only in a very gross case of inadequacy\ninquiry

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ix) It was the contention of the appellant that the provisions of section 194C (6) of the Act override the general provisions of section 194C( 1) and since, it has obtained PAN of the transporters, there is no requirement of deduction of tax at source as provided u/s 194C(6) of the Act as it provides exemption from the application

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ix) It was the contention of the appellant that the provisions of section 194C (6) of the Act override the general provisions of section 194C( 1) and since, it has obtained PAN of the transporters, there is no requirement of deduction of tax at source as provided u/s 194C(6) of the Act as it provides exemption from the application

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ix) It was the contention of the appellant that the provisions of section 194C (6) of the Act override the general provisions of section 194C( 1) and since, it has obtained PAN of the transporters, there is no requirement of deduction of tax at source as provided u/s 194C(6) of the Act as it provides exemption from the application

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

ix) It was the contention of the appellant that the provisions of section 194C (6) of the Act override the general provisions of section 194C( 1) and since, it has obtained PAN of the transporters, there is no requirement of deduction of tax at source as provided u/s 194C(6) of the Act as it provides exemption from the application

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

ix. Foreign Bank Account Χ. Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VI-A Notice u/s 143(2) of the I. T Act 1961 and Notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T. Act 1961 were issued and duly served to the assessee. Ld. AO in the assessment order noted that the assessee submitted replies which were examined and kept on record

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

ix) dated 09.10.2014, surrendered Rs. 16,225/- as addition in the total income of the assessee. Sh. Subhash Pareta, Kota vs. ACIT, Kota 14. In this regard, the relevant findings of the ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as under:- “ I have gone through assessee’s submission and AO’s findings. Although in the assessment order the AO has not mentioned

ITO, KOTA vs. BABU LAL SOMANI, KOTA

ix) Rs. 12,27,248/- v) As per Ground No. 2(xxii) Rs. 1,44,325/- Total Rs. 30,69,266/- As discussed in Ground No. 2(x), the suppressed sales on account of undisclosed production comes to Rs. 36,01,132/- whereas the same comes to Rs. 30,69,266/- by taking figures of undisclosed sale. Giving the benefit

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

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS on payment of Rs. 1,04,35,000/- was also outside the scope of issue under limited scrutiny. The CBDT has issued instruction no. 15/2015 dated 29/12/2015 (CLPB 12 to 14), 05/2016 dated 14/07/2016 (CLPB 14 to 15) and dated 30/11/2017 (CLPB-49) on limited scrutiny matters. The crux of the instructions is summarized as under- i. The questionnaire

SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD -2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

24-08-2018. 2. DCIT vs. Smt. Veena Awasthi (ITA No. 215/LKW/2016, A.Y. 2011-12 dated 30- 11-2018. 3. Abhilasha Jain vs DCIT, Circle (Intl.Tax), Jaipur[IT(IT)A No. 05/JP/2022 , A.Y. 2017-18 dated 07-07-2022] It is also noted that the assessee had filed copy of cash flow statement for the period

AKSHAY INFRASYS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

ix) held that M/s Symphonia & Graphics Pvt. Ltd. used the appellant company which is a related party to inflate the expenses in its own contract without any actual work. Thus there is no real transaction of sale/purchase between the assessee and M/s Symphonia & Graphics Pvt. Ltd. and the entire matter was façade of an arrangement only on paper. Accordingly