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

Section 80IA (8) of the Act. In CIT vs. Thiagarajar Mills Ltd. in Tax Case(Appeal) Nos.68 to 70 of 2010 dated 07-06-2010, it was held that captive consumption of power generated by the assessee from its own power plant would enable the assessee to derive profit and gains by working out the cost of such consumption

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

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 68. 26 RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA 1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have held in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

5. That the DRP failed to peruse the Draft Assessment Order dated 30.03.2024\nwherein Assessing Officer in has infact recorded as hereunder:\n7,2\nIn compliance thereto, the assessee filed his reply dated 14.03.2024 through\ne-portal along with details of payment made through banking channel. However, the\nassessee denied for any cash payment made to purchase the said Flat

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

5 of the table-1. Below this table, another table containing the names of five\nscrips out of the nine named in Table-1 is given. The name of Bakra Pratisthan Ltd. does not\nfigure in this table. These five scrips are stated to be controlled by Praveen Agarwal and\nVijay Dokania, whose statements are stated to have been recorded

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)

253 ITR 633 (Rajasthan), wherein the assessee had raised a claim for weighted deduction under section 35B during the assessment proceedings before the AO. The Hon’ble Court upheld the decision of Tribunal and held that the Appellate Authority has the power to consider a larger amount if the materials supporting that claim are already available on record

M/S JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay of 932 days in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Now, coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has marched this

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

253(3), the appeal was to be\nfiled on/before dated 29.09.2024 however, the same has been filed on dated 01.10.2024.\nThus, the appeal was filed with a delay of 2 days.\n2. Reasonable Cause Exist: In this connection, it is humbly submitted that although there\nwas no delay in filing the instant appeal, in as much as the same

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

gain on sale of “UTI Transportation and Logistics Fund under section 10(38), and by investment of Rs 1,99,000/- which was made from owned funds as assessee was having availability of ample of owned funds. So, no borrowing cost has been incurred towards purchase of this UTI TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS FUND and other investments which may generate exempt

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

gain (LTCG) on sale of shares which was claimed as exempt under section 10(38), since said transactions of sale and purchase of shares were admitted by assessee and it had not brought on record anything to suggest that reassessment proceedings were being undertaken in arbitrary manner, impugned reopening notice was justified [2023] 152 taxmann.com

SANJIVANI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

Section 253(5) of the ITA, if there is sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal, Hon'ble ITAT may condone such delay. It is submitted that the delay was not deliberate. In view of above, it is humbly prayed that delay in filing of appeal may please be condoned. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncement

ACIT, NCR BUILDING, JAIPUR vs. HANS RAJ AGARWAL, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR JAIPUR

39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

gains the same had been satisfactorily explained and accepted by respondent no.1. 7. In our view, the notice dated 30 th March 2019 issued under Section 148 of the said Act is issued without jurisdiction and requires to be set aside. The consequential order dated 15 th October 2019 also requires to be set aside.” 4.17 In summing

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

section 5\nof the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice\nto parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression sufficient cause'\nemployed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the\nlaw in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the\nlife-purpose

SMT. SHAFIKA BEGUM ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-5, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 929/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shafika Begum, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 320/4, H.A.R. Colony, Char Ward 5(5), Darwaja, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ajkpb 6970 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : None (A.O. Report). Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 28/03/2018 For The A.Y. 2009-10, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken:

Capital Gain. 5. The assessee craves her rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.” 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. There is delay of 60 days in filing the present appeal, from which, an application

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

DALU RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR

In the result, result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 54 & 55/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2009-10 Dalu Ram Meena, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. Plot No. 34, Surya Vihar, Ward 6(5) Jagatpura, Jaipur-302025. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Btupm 8782 M Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Akshay Shah (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Aashish Nehra (Addl. Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 13/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Both Dated 15/03/2021 For The A.Y. 2009-10. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are As Under: Grounds Of Ita 54/Jp/2021 For The A.Y. 2009-10 “1. That The Subject Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Is Liable To Be Quashed As The Order Is Passed In Haste Manner, Without Taking Into Consideration The Written Submission, Facts, Documents & Evidences As Furnished By Appellant Available On Record. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) & The A.O. Have Failed To Appreciate That:

capital gain was computed without considering the cost of plot, its indexation value and the investment deduction made u/s 54F of the Act. 3. The ld. CIT(A) have violated the principle of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the Appellant on specifically being asked for, therefore, the order should be deleted. 4. That

DALU RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR

In the result, result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 54 & 55/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2009-10 Dalu Ram Meena, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. Plot No. 34, Surya Vihar, Ward 6(5) Jagatpura, Jaipur-302025. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Btupm 8782 M Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Akshay Shah (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Aashish Nehra (Addl. Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 13/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Both Dated 15/03/2021 For The A.Y. 2009-10. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are As Under: Grounds Of Ita 54/Jp/2021 For The A.Y. 2009-10 “1. That The Subject Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Is Liable To Be Quashed As The Order Is Passed In Haste Manner, Without Taking Into Consideration The Written Submission, Facts, Documents & Evidences As Furnished By Appellant Available On Record. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) & The A.O. Have Failed To Appreciate That:

capital gain was computed without considering the cost of plot, its indexation value and the investment deduction made u/s 54F of the Act. 3. The ld. CIT(A) have violated the principle of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard was provided to the Appellant on specifically being asked for, therefore, the order should be deleted. 4. That