JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

Section 132(4) and/or\nunder Section 131 of the Act have been explained in the affidavit filed on\n20.05.2013, The very fact that the search continued for as long as 36 hours\nindicates that coercion and undue influence were exercised by the authorities of\nthe appellantdepartment for making surrender. The affidavit filed by the assessee\non 20.05.2013 explained in minute

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

4 of the appeal of assessee is allowed. 56. Ground No. 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

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

4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3. The appellant begs permission to add amend or alter any of the\ngrounds of appeal before the hearing of appeal.\"\n2.1 In ITA No. 752/JP/2023, the assessee has taken following\nadditional grounds;\nAdditional Ground No.1\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned\nCIT

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

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

58,626/- out of the claim u/s. 80-IA on water treatment system on account of transfer pricing adjustment of water, the relevant fact is that the assessee has computed transfer price of water (Rs.3/ltr) for captive consumption. The price has been determined on the basis of a quotation obtained from Bisleri International Private Limited for Rs. 3.50 per/ltr

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

4) of the LT Act, 1961 and vide question 11\nof his statement he was asked to explain about the sale agreement executed by\nhim with Shri Nirmal Singh Anand and the amount paid by him in pursuance of this\nagreement In reply, he has stated that he had given only a sum of Rs.21,11,000/-\nand subsequently

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

4) wherein the\nassessee was asked to explain the reason for difference in sale\nconsideration of flat at Ground Floor, in Plot No. 35, Chitragupt Nagari,\nImliwala Phatak, Jaipur sale agreement dated 03.11.2012 and registered\nsale deed dated 11.10.2013 executed by him with Shri Chhotu Ram\nKumawat, In reply the assessee has categorically stated that Shri Chhotu\nRam Kumawat

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

4) wherein the\nassessee was asked to explain the reason for difference in sale\nconsideration of flat at Ground Floor, in Plot No. 35, Chitragupt Nagari,\nImliwala Phatak, Jaipur sale agreement dated 03.11.2012 and registered\nsale deed dated 11.10.2013 executed by him with Shri Chhotu Ram\nKumawat, In reply the assessee has categorically stated that Shri Chhotu\nRam Kumawat

CURRENT INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BASANT VIHAR vs. ACIT, DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR , BABA SIDHNATH BAHWAN

58,16,24,657\ndeductors (amounts appearing against TCS and\n194N are not receipts, hence omitted)\n3.\nCredit of TDS claimed in the return\n1,16,89,928\n4.\nTDS credit allowable as per Rule 37BA=1/2*3\n1,02,59,183\n3. While dismissing the appeal against the abovesaid intimation,\nLearned CIT(A) confirmed denial of credit of TDS

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)

4,85,58,87,970/-. The AO after incorporating the proposed adjustments made by the TPO passed draft assessment order under section 144C of the Act on 28.12.2017 determining total income under the normal provisions of the Act at Rs. 453,88,97,023/- and Rs. 842,23,40,345/- under provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. Since

SURYA SINGHAL,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS) JP (2017) 87 taxmann.com 184 (Rajasthan) and CIT Vs\nVegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192(SC) The Hon'ble\nCourt held that if, two views are possible, the view in favour of the\nassessee should be preferred.\n(b) Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs CIT, Dhanbad (2013) 257 CTR\n159 (Jharkhand)\n(c) CIT, Karnataka Vs Shri Ramdas

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

58,313/- earned from the\nassessee company's JV in Morocco, is squarely covered under the\nprovisions of section 115BBD of the Act, and accordingly Appellant has\nduly paid the tax @ 15%.\n10. The only condition of section 115BBD is that the dividend\nincome should flow from a “specified company” (means a foreign\ncompany in which the Indian company hold

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded