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 ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

Section 80IA (8) of the Act. In CIT vs. Thiagarajar Mills Ltd. in Tax Case(Appeal) Nos.68 to 70 of 2010 dated 07-06-2010, it was held that captive consumption of power generated by the assessee from its own power plant would enable the assessee to derive profit and gains by working out the cost of such consumption

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)

TDS )Rs. 22,947/-) Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). In response to the notice issued under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee filed written submissions along with paper book etc. The ld. CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee partly allowed

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

TDS not eligible for\ndeduction under Section 36(1)(ii) or Section 37 [“Issue No. 2"].\n•\nExcess MAT Credit, pertaining to AY 2016-17, Rs. 96,13,814 erroneously\nallowed. [\"Issue No. 3\"]\n3\nITA243/JP/2023\nASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO. PVT LTD. VS Pr.CIT-2, JAIPUR\n2.2 On examination of the assessment order dated 17-03-2021, the ld. PCIT

JAIPUR CITY TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee company for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The explanation of the assessee company therefore becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient

AEN, RURAL, AVVNL,KISHANGARH vs. DCIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

Bench: The Tribunal In Order For Him To Take Appropriate Action Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme & It Was Therefore Requested To Consider The Assessee’S Condonation Application.

5 AEN Rural AVVNL Vs ACIT(TDS) 7. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. There is no dispute and is an admitted fact that there has been a delay in filing the present appeals by 67 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253

SUB TREASURY OFFICER,ASIND , BHILWARA vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

TDS) has been a delay in filing the present appeal by 3 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253(5

SUB TREASURY OFFICER,ASIND , BHILWARA vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

TDS) has been a delay in filing the present appeal by 3 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253(5

SUB TREASURY OFFICER,ASIND , BHILWARA vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

TDS) has been a delay in filing the present appeal by 3 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253(5

SUB TREASURY OFFICER,ASIND , BHILWARA vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

TDS) has been a delay in filing the present appeal by 3 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253(5

GOVT. SENIOR UPADHAYAY SANSKRIT SCHOOL, SEWAR,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

TDS) 8. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. There is no dispute and is an admitted fact that there has been a delay in filing the present appeals by 43 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253(5

GOVT. SENIOR UPADHAYAY SANSKRIT SCHOOL, SEWAR,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

TDS) 8. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. There is no dispute and is an admitted fact that there has been a delay in filing the present appeals by 43 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253(5

GOVT. SENIOR UPADHAYAY SANSKRIT SCHOOL, SEWAR,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, all these appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

TDS) 8. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. There is no dispute and is an admitted fact that there has been a delay in filing the present appeals by 43 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253(5

GYANESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

253 (PB 29-32) Madras HC. (01/07/2021). 4. Under facts & Circumstances of the case the Ld. AO was not justified in making addition of Rs. 41,23,490/- in total income against which all the supporting documents has been provided in connection with Rs. 41,23,490/- that is deemed as exempted income in the hands of assessee. 5. That

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)

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 may be, of the Tribunal is received by the Chief

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

TDS 1,44,565 Nil Nil Thus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 18-83), following disallowance made by the AO stood confirmed:- RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR Disallowance of CSR Expenses Rs.1,41,42,000/- Disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 71,75,575/- After the order of Hon’ble ITAT, AO again

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

253 23.06.2016 6 GAURAV AGARWAL 2,65,790 Son 7 GIRISH BHANDARI 17,42,500 16.12.2017 258 8 GOURESH KUMAR GUPTA 1,25,000 17.06.2019 260 9 KIRAN AGARWAL 1,23,675 22.01.2019, 01.04.2020 262,263 10 K.K. SONS 1,75,000 15.06.2019 266 11 KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA HUF 5,37,500 12.07.2020 269 12 MISHARI LAL KUNDAN