RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS\ndeducted of Rs.2,17,807/- and on the basis of said information, the reasons have been\nrecorded. It has been further submitted that after recording thesaid reasons, a notice u/s\n133(6) dated 22.08.2017 was issued to Punjab National Bank to obtain copies of bank\nstatements of the account in which such alleged receipts were credited. It was\naccordingly

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS\ndeducted of Rs.2,17,807/- and on the basis of said information, the reasons have been\nrecorded. It has been further submitted that after recording thesaid reasons, a notice u/s\n133(6) dated 22.08.2017 was issued to Punjab National Bank to obtain copies of bank\nstatements of the account in which such alleged receipts were credited. It was\naccordingly

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS\ndeducted of Rs.2,17,807/- and on the basis of said information, the reasons have been\nrecorded. It has been further submitted that after recording thesaid reasons, a notice u/s\n133(6) dated 22.08.2017 was issued to Punjab National Bank to obtain copies of bank\nstatements of the account in which such alleged receipts were credited. It was\naccordingly

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS\ndeducted of Rs.2,17,807/- and on the basis of said information, the reasons have been\nrecorded. It has been further submitted that after recording thesaid reasons, a notice u/s\n133(6) dated 22.08.2017 was issued to Punjab National Bank to obtain copies of bank\nstatements of the account in which such alleged receipts were credited. It was\naccordingly

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

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

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BHIWADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

TDS of Rs.900).\nThe same information is also available in the system which is pasted below:-\nS.NO TAN\nName of Deductor\nSection\nAmount Paid Credited\nTotal Tax Collected Deposited\nReturn Financial Year\n1 DELS 43946A\nSHIMIZU CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD 194H\n5.55.557\n58,240\n2012-13\n2 DELB08746D\nBERRY DEVELOPERS AND\nINFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED\n194H\n25.52.624\n2.55.262\n2012

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

80a[Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the value of the investments may be deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial year. Sunrise Real Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO From the perusal of this section, it is revealed that the section 69 is applicable when the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account

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