ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

5 in assessment year 2004-05 in respect of cash found in previous year relevant to assessment year 2007-08, merely on presumption that assessee might have been in possession of cash throughout period covered by search assessments - Held, yes [In favour of assessee]\"\n8.4 PCIT vs. Trisha Krishnan [2019] 111 taxmann.com 97 (SC)wherein, it was held as under

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

1)(c), assessee's status\nwas to be regarded as non-resident - Held, yes\"\nk. THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'SMC' incase of Avdesh Kumar\nV. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1,\nGhaziabad* [2018] 96 taxmann.com 340 (Delhi - Trib.) held\nthat \"Section 6, read with section 5, of the Income-tax\nAct, 1961 Residential status (Individual) Assessment\nyear

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

5 in assessment year 2004-05 in respect of cash found in previous\nyear relevant to assessment year 2007-08, merely on presumption that assessee\nmight have been in possession of cash throughout period covered by search\nassessments - Held, yes [In favour of assessee]\"\n8.4\nPCIT vs. Trisha Krishnan [2019] 111 taxmann.com 97 (SC)wherein, it was\nheld as under

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

5 (Additional Ground No.1 ) relates to necessary direction may be given to the AO to allow the claim of depreciation on expenditure incurred in respect to acquisition of leasehold rights on land u/s 32(1)(ii) being business or commercial right of similar nature. The appellant has submitted that such rights have been acquired for carrying on the business

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)

section 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If no one attends this office on the said date of hearing, the case shall be decided on the basis of the material available on records. Yours faithfully, 4 ITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025 RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR SEAL Office of : ACIT

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

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

5 (Additional Ground No.1 ) relates to necessary direction may be given to the AO to allow the claim of depreciation on expenditure incurred in respect to acquisition of leasehold rights on land u/s 32(1)(ii) being business or commercial right of similar nature. The appellant has submitted that such rights have been acquired for carrying on the business

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

5 PM, where in it has asked the Hon'ble court to stay these\nproceedings under section 12AB, and restraining the DVO from valuation. This\nclearly shows that assessee is in no mood of co-operation and not willing to submit\nany further details and compliance, as the matter is time barred on 30.09.2023, and\nlots of opportunities have been

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

TDS, Jaipur (ITA No. 1391/\nJPR/2024) dated 13.03.2025\nThe Hon'ble Bench in para 5. 1. and 5.2 summarised the position as under:\n7. The scheme of the assessment proceedings can't be equated with the scheme as\nenvisaged in section

DUSHYANT KUMAR TYAGI,G1-1103 R.I.A. vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, BHIWADI

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

TDS on interest paid u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Even otherwise, the claim of the assessee is allowable u/s 37(1) read with section second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) further read with first proviso to section 201(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01-04-2013 in view

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

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Section 40(a)(ia) is also attracted wherever TDS on payment of 7 DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur VS M/s. JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur commission to a non-resident has not been made at appropriate rates. These provisions bar deduction of any payment on account of commission [fee for technical services] made to a non-resident, without making TDS

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

1,44,13,853/- [30% of 4,80,46,176/-] by wrongly invoking the Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. TDS return was filed delayed, due to which, the AO invoked the Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194C(6) and 194C(7) of the Act. He further submitted that Section 194C(6) provides that no deduction (TDS) is required

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

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

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

section\n271(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If no one attends this office on the said\ndate of hearing, the case shall be decided on the basis of the material available on\nrecords.\n\nYours faithfully,\nSd/-\n\n4\nITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025\nRAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR\n\nSEAL\nOffice

BAREFOOT COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL,KISHANGARH vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n20/02/2024

5 Related to Grounds of Appeal No. 7\n35. Please note in the ITR for AY 2021-22, as net business was reported in Schedule AI, there\nhappened mismatch from Form 26AS and company's claim of refund of TDS was restricted CPC\nwhile processing the ITR u/s 143 (1) (Refer to Paper Book No. 4, Page

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

TDS not eligible for deduction\nunder Section 36(1)(ii) or Section 37.\n•\nExcess MAT Credit, pertaining to AY 2016-17, Rs. 96,13,814 erroneously\nallowed.\nEach of such issues is now being taken up by us, in the ensuing paragraphs.\n2.5.1 Disallowance under Section 14A, read with Rule 8D, of Rs. 23,31,312/-\n35\nITA243/JP/2023\nASSOCIATED