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

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

10B as per Rule 17B, the assessce has shown investment in shares of M/s Om Metal Infra Project Ltd. of Rs. 23,35,000/- (in the balance sheet shown at Rs. 23,35,562/-). The shares of M/s Om Metals Infra Project Ltd not an eligible asses within the meaning of provisions of section 11(5) as such it attracts

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

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU SHEKSHANIK AND SAMAJIK SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. EXEMPTION WARD 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Section 119(2)(b) as mandated in Para 4(ii) of the said circular, the delay cannot be condoned. 4.9 In view of the above, I am of the considerate view that, since the appellant has filed Form 10B later than due date of filing of income tax return, thus it is not covered by immunity granted by Para

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation on CPP was\nallowed by the AO while framing the assessment under Section 143(3) after conscious\nconsideration of the material on record. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the formation\nof the belief regarding the escapement of the assessment by the AO is based on any new material\ncoming on record. Apparently, the formation

SARAF EXPORT,CHURU vs. ACIT, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

10B in any of the subsequent assessment year.” The above order of the Hon’ble Tribunal is crystal clear in respect of fact that if in the initial year the deduction has been claimed cannot be disturbed in the succeeding year. The ration of the order of the Tribunal is applicable in toto. I further want to draw your kind

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS BUILDTECH PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation, unabsorbed allowance, etc. Ordinarily these deductions are permissible in view of the provisions introduced in the statute by the Parliament and the Parliament is equally competent to take away or restrict or limit such allowances for a definite purpose." 5.3 Thus, the legislature never intended to bring tax in such events which otherwise are not taxable at all under

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

BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE -4-JAIPUR, RJN-C-(104)(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10B in electronically form which is made mandatory under Rule 12 (2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However, there is no change with regard to the substantive law about filing of the audit report, as stated above. 6. The moot aspect thus centers around the requirement of the of the audit report when the assessment was undertaken

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10B such price is to be adjusted for difference. No appropriate adjustment was made by lower authorities for basic difference i.e. the assessee company was not in existence at the time of approval of tender, It was merely conduit company, it has no experience, no infrastructure, and no funds to execute the work and even the parent company

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10B such price is to be adjusted for difference. No appropriate adjustment was made by lower authorities for basic difference i.e. the assessee company was not in existence at the time of approval of tender, It was merely conduit company, it has no experience, no infrastructure, and no funds to execute the work and even the parent company

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereinafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." (Emphasis supplied) What is clear from the above provision is that once assessment is reopened for bringing to tax any income that escaped assessment in terms

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

10B dated 14.11.2017 it is evident that number of discrepancies have been noted by the Auditor, who mentioned in Sr. No.3(c) that as per FIR copy, 22 plots has been given to the person who are not the member of Association and received conversion charges from 17 persons @ 1,85,000/- and no details available regarding remaining 5 plots

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

10B report of auditor, wherein he expressed his personal opinion, was made a base for reopening the case. It was submitted that an opinion of auditor cannot be considered as a tangible material or information. ITA No. 960/JP/2018 & CO No.05/JP/2020 7 M/s Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust vs. ITO (E) Even the audit findings of section 142(2A) audit cannot

SHRI BHANWAR LAL KHICHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

10B which is applicable to an assessee availing benefit under Section 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act. During assessment, the Assessing Officer required the Appellant University to ask the auditor to refile the audit report in the correct Form 10BB and the auditor filed the correct audit report in Form 10BB as per Section

RAJIV GANDHI VIDHYA PITH SHIKSHA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION W(1), JAIPUR

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

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

section in the same or any other previous year.” 8 Rajiv Gandhi Vidhya Pith Shiksha vs. ITO The case of the AO was that the appellant having already claimed the capital expenditure in the preceding years/current year as application of income, the depreciation w.r.t. cost of such asset, if permitted, will amount to double deduction which was not permissible

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

depreciation etc—Tribunal after taking note of factual position,\nmore particularly, that addition which was made in reassessment proceedings\nhaving been deleted by CIT(A) reassessment on heads which were not part of\nreasons recorded for reopening assessment is not sustainable—Held, in case of\nGKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Versus Income-Tax Officer and Ors., (2003) 259\nITR

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

depreciation etc—Tribunal after taking note of factual position,\nmore particularly, that addition which was made in reassessment proceedings\nhaving been deleted by CIT(A) reassessment on heads which were not part of\nreasons recorded for reopening assessment is not sustainable—Held, in case of\nGKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Versus Income-Tax Officer and Ors., (2003) 259\nITR