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

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

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

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Depreciation of Rs. 1,00,525/-) for the year under consideration. The Humble Appellant has also declared sale proceeds of building amounting of Rs. 61,00,000/- and after claiming indexing benefit, declared Long term capital loss of Rs. 50,450/-. That the Humble Appellant has claimed the cost of Property

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

138 taxmann.com 19 (Madhya Pradesh)] [SLP against this judgement was dismissed reported at [2022] 141 taxmann.com 477 (SC)/[2022) 288 Taxman 635 (SC)[25-07-2022] 24 Kath Brothers vs. ACIT (e) Undisclosed income or undisclosed investment cannot be explained through another unexplained income or unexplained source. That tantamounts to mere creation of an artificial layer. Verifiable purchases should

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

depreciation was the subject- matter of appeal, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 263 and to pass any order on this aspect of the matter. 6 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT 412 ITR 515 (Guj) Haryana Paper Distributors Pvt. Ltd. V. Pr. CIT Held Two things immediately become clear. First that the Assessing

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

138 without referring the matter to the Full Bench is directly in conflict with that given in 389 ITR 578 and thus has no precedent value. Otherwise also, where there is conflict between the decisions of non jurisdictional High Courts, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred. So far as amendment to section

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

138 without referring the matter to the Full Bench is directly in conflict with that given in 389 ITR 578 and thus has no precedent value. Otherwise also, where there is conflict between the decisions of non jurisdictional High Courts, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred. So far as amendment to section

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

138 without referring the matter to the Full Bench is directly in conflict with that given in 389 ITR 578 and thus has no precedent value. Otherwise also, where there is conflict between the decisions of non jurisdictional High Courts, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred. So far as amendment to section

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him.

section 69B of the Act. This section reads as under:- "Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 69B. Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, and the Assessing Officer finds that

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

138 taxmann.com 19 (Madhya Pradesh)] [SLP against this judgement was dismissed - reported at [2022] 141 taxmann.com 477 (SC)/[2022] 288 Taxman 635 (SC)[25-07-2022) 18 Jagdish Kumar Arora (e) Undisclosed income or undisclosed investment cannot be explained through another unexplained income or unexplained source. That tantamounts to mere creation of an artificial layer. Verifiable cash sources trail should

M/S. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. ADD.CIT. RANGE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the ground of appeal so taken by the assessee society is thus allowed

138 elaborately differentiate the business, trade activity from charitable activity under the residuary category i.e. "advancement of any other object of general public utility". Apart from this, the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Delhi and District Cricket Association vs. CIT(E), ITA No.3095/Del/2012 held as under:- " 10.9. Thus respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Madras High

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

depreciation on Vehicle Rs. 1,37,346/- Rs.27,35,361/- Aggrieved of the additions made in the assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A), which proceedings were also concluded vide order dated 31.01.2018. Subsequently, ld. PCIT(adm.) initiated the proceedings u/s 263 by issue of ,show cause notice vide letter No. Pr. CIT-II/ITO/(T & J)/JPR/263-

YUWAM EDUCATION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

138 taxmann.com 19 (Madhya Pradesh) was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reported at [2022] 141 taxmann.com 477 (SC/[2022] 288 taxmann 635 (SC) [25.07.2022] x x x x 15 Yuwam Education Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur vs. DCIT PCIT vs. Deccan Tobacco Company [2022] 137 taxmann.com 470 (SC)/[2022] 286 Taxman 558 (SC)/[11.03.2022] [Hon’ble Supreme Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

138, 196, 226), Premkunj Commonsales\nPrivate Limited (CIT(A) PBP 139, 146, 167, 184, 225) , Panchkoti Wholeseller P\nLtd, (CIT(A) PBP 153, 168, 172, 173, 222 ) Nightbrid Barter P Ltd (CIT(A) PBP\n160, 169, 171, 220, ):\n\n(i) In respect of M/s Shankatharan Sales P Ltd, M/s Premkunj Commotrade P\nLtd, M/s Premkunj Commosales P Ltd, Panchkoti

MANGI LAL KANDOI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

138 carats of diamond of the value of Rs. 37,13,994/- was treated as unexplained. (vi) The silver weighing 39 kg has been treated as explained by the Learned CIT(A) with respect to the status of the family and traditions. In view of the aforesaid facts the Learned CIT(A) has sustained addition

KAILASH CHAND,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation, what the authorities below have taxed is the Gross Receipts but not the income which is against the very concept under the Income Tax Act. Kindly refer Sanath Kumar Murali v ITO & Ors) Karnataka HC Citation (2023) 333 CTR (Kar) 189. 3.4 Interestingly, the AO himself made ad hoc disallowance

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

depreciation of Rs.1,90,73,215/-.\n2. Brief details of information collected/received by the AO: The information has\nbeen received from the ITO(Inv.). Unit 1 & AIU, Kolkata vide letter No. 9301 dated\n06.03.2018 in the case. As per credible information certain bank account\ntransactions appeared suspicious. The transactions appear to be circular nature\nand the account appears to have