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

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Capital Gains Account backed\nby sale of immovable property.”\nADDITIONAL WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS-II\nASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.01.2025 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION\nQUA SECTION 153B R.W.S. 144C OF THE ACT\n24. That the assessment order dated 21.01.2025 is barred by Limitation as per\nsection 153B r.w.s.144C of the Act. Kindly consider the following chart in\nthis regard.\nSno.\nDate\nParticulars\nRelevant

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

144C as invalid and void ab initio which is liable to be quashed since not passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act.\n3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s claim of allowing reliability

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

capital gain. In the result, impugned notice is quashed. Petition is disposed of. In view of the aforesaid submissions the Hon’ble ITAT is requested to quashed the proceedings initiated under section 148/148A. Cross objection Ground No. 2 In the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT Appeals erred in not quashing the assessment order which has been

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)

144C read with section 143(3) of the Act on 23.02.2018 by making various disallowances/additions to the returned income of the assessee as under :- - Reduction in claim u/s 80IA on power undertakings on account of transfer pricing adjustment of power (Rs. 2,89,07,63,321/-, - Reduction in claim u/s 80IA on Solid Waste Management System on account of transfer

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

144C as invalid and void ab initio \nwhich is liable to be quashed since not passed in accordance with the \nprovisions of Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act.\n3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. \nCIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s \nclaim of allowing reliability

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 263 of the Act. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT (IT), Delhi-1 grossly erred in holding the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT (IT), Delhi-1 grossly erred

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

section 144/147 r.w.s. 144C is\ncompletely without jurisdiction in as much as the Id. Assessing Officer, Circle\n(INTL TAX), Jaipur not holding any valid jurisdiction and therefore, the impugned\nnotice issued u/s 148 dt.30.03.2022 and the consequent, impugned assessment\norder dt.29.12.2023 complete nullity being without jurisdiction and deserves to be\nquashed.\n3.1. The Id. Dispute Resolution Panel

AJAY AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. CIT (IT), DELHI-1, CIT(IT) DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

5,81,368/- in the computation of Long-Term Capital Gain which was added to the Long Term Capital Gain income of the assessee. Accordingly ld. AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 144C

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

capital gains in the hands of the \nshareholders and not charged to the company which used to result into \nincome tax payable at lower rates. This was used by the companies as a \ntool to avoid taxation and to distribute surplus income amongst \nshareholders. As an anti-tax avoidance measure, the government \nintroduced the provision of section 115QA under

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

144C(1) of the IT Act was passed in this case on 27.03.2023 and was duly served to the assessee. Thereafter, the DCIT (Intl. Tax), Jaipur passed the assessment order under section 147 read with section 144 of the IT Act, 1961 on 27.03.2022 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 60,04,230/-. On appeal

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

144C(1) of the IT Act was passed in this case on 27.03.2023 and was duly served to the assessee. Thereafter, the DCIT (Intl. Tax), Jaipur passed the assessment order under section 147 read with section 144 of the IT Act, 1961 on 27.03.2022 assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs. 60,04,230/-. On appeal

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

144C dated 28-12-2017 was forwarded by the AO to the Ld. PCIT. I fail to understand on what basis this averment was made by the Id AR as there is no such requirement in law to send a copy of the draft order to the Ld. PCIT. 1.4.1 It has been submitted by the Id. AR that