ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS under section 201(1A)\nwas to be allowed as deduction - Held, yes [Paras 5 and 6] [In favour of\nassessee]...”\n2.5. Thus, in view of the decisions set out hereinbefore, allowability of such interest\nexpense was one of the plausible views which was adopted by NFAC.\n2.6. It is a settled proposition that once a plausible view is adopted

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

246 or an appeal to the Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of CIT(A) or, as the case

JAGDISH CHANDRA SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

TDS)—Accordingly, six months from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of penalty was initiated expired on 30th June, 2010—Hence, the order imposing penalty under s. 271C could have been passed on or before 30th June, 2010— Therefore, order levying penalty under s. 271C passed by the Addl. CIT on 18th

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

246 Taxman 324 (Mad.) (HC): In view of section 32(1)(iia), there is no limitation placed on assessee in claiming balance additional depreciation in assessment year which follows assessment year in which machinery has been bought and used for less than 180 days. As a matter of fact, with effect from 01.04.2016, the ambiguity if any, in this regard

MAWALIYO KI DHANI DUGDH UTPADAK MAHILA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 7(2), JAIPUR

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

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

TDS Statement, had received contractual payments from Jaipur Zilla DudghUtpadakSahkari Sangh Ltd., amounting to Rs. 2.71,246/-. Also, as per the Assessment Order. it is seen that the ITR filed in response to Notice u/s 148 was an invalid ITR and hence, all the above transactions remained unverified. In view of the above discussion of facts and circumstances

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

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

TDS on such payments under section 194C of the Income Tax Act,\n1961. Since, the work performed/done by the applicant trust are at the instance of\nconditions laid down in MOU/Agreement only and not out of the violation of the\ntrust activities. The activities of the Trust are in the nature of trade and commerce\nand cater solely

APM INDUSTRIES LTD,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

TDS not applicable Total 3,82,03,413 10 APM Industries Ltd vs. DCIT Add : IND AS adjustments 10,69,246 Add : Bank charges paid as processing fee 15,35,737 to banks Total interest paid as per Balance sheet 4,08,08,396 and shown in ITR schedule P&I IND as AT s.No.43(iii) In the order

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

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

section\n11 (2) and 11(1)(a) of the\nAct\n33,50,772/-\n33,50,772/-\n5.\nUnverifiable Creditors\n16,75,286/-\n16,75,286/-\n6.\n15% of Construction\nExpenses\n1,20,00,440/-\n1,20,00,440/-\n7.\nDisallowance of Rs\n3,69,567 out of total\nexpenses

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

246-247 of CLPB] provides that product comparability is of utmost importance for application of CUP method which is a general guideline. However, Para 1.109 of the guidelines provides a specific carve out from the aforesaid requirement and states that it may be acceptable to broaden the comparability analysis to include uncontrolled transactions involving products that are different, but where

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

246-247 of CLPB] provides that product comparability is of utmost importance for application of CUP method which is a general guideline. However, Para 1.109 of the guidelines provides a specific carve out from the aforesaid requirement and states that it may be acceptable to broaden the scope of the comparability analysis to include uncontrolled transactions involving products that

MEHAR CHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

TDS of Rs.56,122/- u/s 194A and self assessment tax of Rs.7,230/- u/s 140A of IT Act, 1961 though shown in 26AS of assessee pertaining to relevant AY and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not giving any finding thereon. 4. That the AO has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances

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)

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

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

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition