ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

ii) that by virtue of the Amendment introduced by Finance Act (No.2) 2009, the distinction between a contractor and a sub-contractor has been done away with and Cl. (iii) of Explanation under 194C(7) now clarifies that "contract" shall include sub-contract; (iii) subject to compliance with the provisions of Section 194C(6), immunity from TDS under sec. 194C

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. 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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

1:1, market price of clinker can be used to benchmark the arm’s length transaction between the Waste facility and Cement Manufacturing units that are the end users of pond ash produced by the former. Some of the assessee’s contentions were rejected, the summary of which can be found as below: Assessee’s submissions vide reply dated

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

1:1, market price of clinker can be used to benchmark the arm’s length transaction between the Waste facility and Cement Manufacturing units that are the end users of pond ash produced by the former. Some of the assessee’s contentions were rejected, the summary of which can be found as below:\nAssessee’s submissions\nvide reply dated

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

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS of\nRs.21,850/- has been deducted. The same is also evident from Form 26AS. As\nper the contract assessee was to provide IT training to the students.\n2.\nThe AO observed that the assessee had made payment against credit\ncard bills amounting to Rs.5,26,000/- and earned contract receipts of\nRs.13,90,000/-. Assessee has not responded

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

ii) Such escapement occurred by reason of failure on the part of the assessee either (a) to make a return of income under section 139 or in response to the notice issued under sub-section (1) of Section 142 or Section 148 or (b) to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for his assessment for that purpose

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27\nof 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such\nreference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing\nOfficer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act.\n[Explanation 1]. —For the purposes of this section, \"Valuation Officer\" shall\nhave

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

TDS of Rs.21,850/- has been deducted. The same is also evident from Form 26AS. As per the contract assessee was to provide IT training to the students. 2. The AO observed that the assessee had made payment against credit card bills amounting to Rs.5,26,000/- and earned contract receipts of Rs.13,90,000/-. Assessee has not responded

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

TDS”).(Copy of Income tax return and audited accounts at Paper Book page no. 2 to14) Trust Deed: The assessee trust was constituted vide trust deed dated 2nd June, 2008. The settlers of the trust are Rajasthan Asset Management Company Private Limited (a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) and the trustees are Rajasthan Trustee Company Private Limited

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

II) The appellant submits that the additions in respect of all the papers seized and inventorized under Exhibit A-10 have already been made by the ld. AO in A.Y.2017-18, wherein a total addition of Rs.2,35,50,916/- has been made taking into account all the papers contained in the said exhibit. Therefore, no separate addition is warranted

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

II) The appellant submits that the additions in respect of all the papers seized and inventorized under Exhibit A-10 have already been made by the ld. AO in A.Y.2017-18, wherein a total addition of Rs.2,35,50,916/- has been made taking into account all the papers contained in the said exhibit. Therefore, no separate addition is warranted

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

II) The appellant submits that the additions in respect of all the papers seized and inventorized under Exhibit A-10 have already been made by the ld. AO in A.Y.2017-18, wherein a total addition of Rs.2,35,50,916/- has been made taking into account all the papers contained in the said exhibit. Therefore, no separate addition is warranted

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

II) The appellant submits that the additions in respect of all the papers seized and inventorized under Exhibit A-10 have already been made by the ld. AO in A.Y.2017-18, wherein a total addition of Rs.2,35,50,916/- has been made taking into account all the papers contained in the said exhibit. Therefore, no separate addition is warranted

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

II) The appellant submits that the additions in respect of all the papers seized and inventorized under Exhibit A-10 have already been made by the ld. AO in A.Y.2017-18, wherein a total addition of Rs.2,35,50,916/- has been made taking into account all the papers contained in the said exhibit. Therefore, no separate addition is warranted

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

II) The appellant submits that the additions in respect of all the papers seized and inventorized under Exhibit A-10 have already been made by the ld. AO in A.Y.2017-18, wherein a total addition of Rs.2,35,50,916/- has been made taking into account all the papers contained in the said exhibit. Therefore, no separate addition is warranted