AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

133(6) which was\neven prior to the serving of the notice u/s 148, resultantly it could not be a case of\nprior detection nor could be a case of intended wrong claim with a view to\nsuppress the income or to evade taxes.\n7.3. It must be appreciated that there has been no such allegations in the entire\nperiod

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

133(6) which was\neven prior to the serving of the notice u/s 148, resultantly it could not be a case of\nprior detection nor could be a case of intended wrong claim with a view to\nsuppress the income or to evade taxes.\n7.3. It must be appreciated that there has been no such allegations in the entire\nperiod

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

133(6) which was\neven prior to the serving of the notice u/s 148, resultantly it could not be a case of\nprior detection nor could be a case of intended wrong claim with a view to\nsuppress the income or to evade taxes.\n7.3. It must be appreciated that there has been no such allegations in the entire\nperiod

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

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section 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) :\n\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

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

INDIA COMMERCIAL SERVICES ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

133(6)", "44AB", "142(1)", "143(2)" ], "issues": "Whether the PCIT's order under Section 263 was justified when the AO had already conducted inquiries and taken a plausible view on the issues of unsecured loans, Section 80G deduction, and depreciation

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

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

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

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

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

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

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