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

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

VINODKUMAR AGARWAL,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

4) Further it is a case of \"CAPITAL GAIN\" & \"SALE AMOUNT\" cannot\nbe considered as capital gain; since section 45(1) of Income Tax Act\n1961 states \"Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a\nCAPITAL ASSET\" shall be chargeable to Income Tax under the head\n\"CAPITAL GAIN\".\nWhereas the A.O. & CIT(A) both have considered \"SALE

VINODKUMAR AGARWAL,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

4) Further it is a case of "CAPITAL GAIN" & "SALE AMOUNT" cannot be considered as capital gain; since section 45(1) of Income Tax Act 1961 states "Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a CAPITAL ASSET" shall be chargeable to Income Tax under the head "CAPITAL GAIN". Whereas the A.O. & CIT(A) both have considered "SALE VALUE

VINODKUMAR AGARWAL,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

4) Further it is a case of "CAPITAL GAIN" & "SALE AMOUNT" cannot be considered as capital gain; since section 45(1) of Income Tax Act 1961 states "Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a CAPITAL ASSET" shall be chargeable to Income Tax under the head "CAPITAL GAIN". Whereas the A.O. & CIT(A) both have considered "SALE VALUE

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

255] Del) 10 Om Infra Limited vs. DCIT, Central Circle-01, Jaipur Section 154, object of.- The provisions of section 154 are meant to rectify an apparent error committed by the Assessing Officer. They cannot be sought to be invoked to rectify an error committed by the assessee while filing the return of income [Mold-Tek Plastics Lid. v. Deputy

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

255 (Raj.) in the\ncases like that of assessee, once there is incriminating material seized\nbelonging to or relatable to the person other than the person on whom\nsearch was conducted, section 153C is to be resorted to. Hon'ble Court\nhas clearly observed that provisions of section 153A to 153D have\nprevalence over the regular provisions of assessment

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

255 ITR 220 (P&H)\r\nand Travancore Cements Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (2008) 219 CTR (Ker) 359 : (2008)\r\n305 ITR 170 (Ker) held no longer good law.\r\nThe heading of s.147 is \"Income escaping assessment\" and that of s.148\r\n\"Issue of notice where income escaped assessment\". Sec. 148 is\r\nsupplementary and complimentary to s.147

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

255 ITR 220 (P&H) and Travancore Cements Ltd.\nvs. Asstt. CIT (2008) 219 CTR (Ker) 359 : (2008) 305 ITR 170 (Ker) held no\nlonger good law.\nThe heading of s.147 is \"Income escaping assessment\" and that of s.148 \"Issue\nof notice where income escaped assessment\". Sec. 148 is supplementary and\ncomplimentary to s.147. Sub-s. (2) of s.148 mandates

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

255 ITR 220 (P&H) and Travancore Cements Ltd.\nvs. Asstt. CIT (2008) 219 CTR (Ker) 359 : (2008) 305 ITR 170 (Ker) held no\nlonger good law.\nThe heading of s.147 is \"Income escaping assessment\" and that of s.148 \"Issue\nof notice where income escaped assessment\". Sec. 148 is supplementary and\ncomplimentary to s.147. Sub-s. (2) of s.148 mandates

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SUPREME POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the results the appeal of the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 189/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Supreme Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 137-138, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 5773 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की ता

capital gain based on material found from the office premises of the group companies but panchanama drawn on such office premises does not include the name of the assessee i.e. Shri Krishna Kumar Singhania. In such facts and circumstances the coordinate bench held that the seized documents from the office premises of group of companies in which assessee

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

255 and claim various expenses\nunder the head, depreciation, interest on car loan, etc., however,\nas per the provision of section 44AD (6)(ii) of the act, income\nderived in the nature of commission or brokerage is not liable to be\noffered under section 44AD. Accordingly, assessee was asked to\nexplain why the brokerage income should not be considered

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

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

255 (Delhi) (Mag.)/[2011] 335 ITR 259 (Delhi)/[2011] 244 CTR 51 (Delhi)[08-04-2011]\nSome of the arguments made on behalf of the assesse as noted in the judgement are as under:-\n\"It was also argued that the legislative intent in connection with section 271 of the Act is further fortified from the various Explanations provided

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

255 (Delhi) (Mag.)/[2011] 335 ITR 259 (Delhi)/[2011] 244 CTR 51 (Delhi)[08-04-20111 Some of the arguments made on behalf of the assesse as noted in the judgement are as under:- "It was also argued that the legislative intent in connection with section 271 of the Act is further fortified from the various Explanations provided

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain, he cannot simply dispute fact that assessee did not file return—\nEntire reasoning recorded by AO for initiation of reassessment proceeding and\nissuance of notice under section 148 was on wrong and incorrect facts that\nassessee has never filed return of income, and in fact, it was filed—Initiation of\nreassessment proceeding u/s.147 and notice under section

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

capital receipt - HELD THAT:- The entire show cause notice that the initiation of revision is premised only on the report submitted by the AO requesting for the revision of the assessment order. During an earlier hearing, the ld. DR was directed to produce the said report of the AO forming part of the show cause notice. DR produced the file

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

255 (Rajasthan)[19-03-2024] and Tirupati\nConstruction Company v. Income-tax Officer [2024] 165 taxmann.com 176\n(Rajasthan)/[2024] 465 ITR 611 (Rajasthan)[21-03 2024].\n2. Direction given beyond jurisdiction:\n2.1 The provisions concerning the jurisdiction and power of Ld.CIT(A)/JCIT(A)\nare contained in section 250 and 251 which reads as follows:\n34\nITA Nos.709/JP/2025\nDCIT