INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in\nsections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) \nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this\nsection has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in\nsections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this\nsection has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

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

section 131 was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, w.e.f. 01.10.1975. Therefore, when survey has been carried out u/s 133(A), there is pendency of proceedings and hence the AO can record statement on oath u/s 131(1) r.w.s 133A(3)(iii) in as much as such statement may be useful for or relevant to the survey proceedings

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)

Section 133(6) collected by AO from Bird Automotive Pvt. Ltd., from which the vehicle was purchased. Bird Automotive confirmed the sale of the car to the assessee company the total value of the car was Rs. 40,96,817. Of this, Rs. 16,56,453 was paid by the assessee from its own sources, and the remainder was financed

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)

133 ITD 99 (Del)= 10 ITTR 428; Asst. DIT v. Linklaters, (201433 IITR 470 (Mum); Otis~ Elevators Comp,111·} (India) ltd. v. Deputy CIT, (2015) 38 ITR 631 (Mum). (4) Provisions of section 154 were inapplicable inasmuch as entire issue being debatable, act of withdrawing interest could not be of nature of rectifying mistake apparent from record [V.M. Salgaocar & Bros

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

Section 133(6) collected by\nAO from Bird Automotive Pvt. Ltd., from which the vehicle was purchased. Bird\nAutomotive confirmed the sale of the car to the assessee company the total value\nof the car was Rs.40,96,817. Of this, Rs.16,56,453 was paid by the assessee\nfrom its own sources, and the remainder was financed

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

6] of the Act is prospective in nature and operates with effect from 01.04.2015.” 3.6. Similar view has been adopted by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in its following other decisions:  CIT vs. Karnataka Reddy Janasangha [2016] 72 taxmann.com 88 (Kar)  PCIT vs. Sri Sri Adichunchunagiri Shikshana Trust [2016] 72 taxmann.com 133 (Karnataka) In view of the above, addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTION), WARD-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S ALPHA BETA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

133(6) remained non-complied with, no burden can be cast upon assessee. Whereas, assessee’s case is on far better footing that M/s Sysnet Global has replied and has in fact furnished the details may be not the full details to the satisfaction of ld. AO. Thus no adverse could be drawn in the case of assessee if third

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

133 of the Act) is sought to be initiated; or (v) When the functionality to issue communication is not available in the system, 26 Lovely promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT the communication may be issued manually but only after recording reasons in writing in the tile and with prior written approval of the Chief Commissioner / Director General of income

SHANTI LAL BHANDARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

depreciation is statutory allowance and therefore bad in law & facts.” 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of garments from past many years in the name and style of M/s Pas Home Textiles. During the year, the assessee declared gross profit of Rs. 1374755/- on the turnover of Rs. 13230025/- giving GP rate

M/S GLAMOUR ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

133(6) of the Act was examined and it was found that the amount paid by the assessee to the Mining Engineer are exactly the same as mentioned in the assessment order. It was accordingly submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) which has rightly confirmed the said disallowance made

SMT. SHEELA YOGI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 3 & 4 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed

Bench: Him Under Rule 46A Of The Income Tax Act, 1962. 2(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act.

133(6) was issued and in response, the said company submitted its necessary confirmation along with audited balance-sheet, bank statement and other evidence which was found satisfactorily explained by the Assessing Officer. The assessee also submitted that she has received a sum of Rs. 45,33,000/- from nine agriculturists as advance towards sale of another agricultural land

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

RAM DEV CHANDELWAL,S/O SHRI HEERA LAL CHANDELWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - BUNDI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

133(6) of the Act which was received from them. On examination of bank account, the ld. AO found that the assessee has made cash deposit in bank account regularly, which includes cash deposited in SBN during demonetization period. In the ITR in form-3 the assessee declared taxable income of Rs. 6,58,230/- under presumptive income

RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

section 43B. In view of the mandate of clause (a) of section 47 ITA No. 253/JP/2015 along with 13 other appeals. M/s Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. 43B of the Act, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Depreciation Interest 90 & 93 6 2004-05 (76,57,476) 61,95,251/- 9,011/- 1,39,87,305/- 63,