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 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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act.\n6.1 In support of the ground so taken the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the said ground being technical in nature is not being pressed in the interest of substantive justice. Hence, the said ground is not being adjudicated. Ground No. 1 of appeal is therefore dismissed.\n7. Ground

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s claim of allowing reliability charge of Rs. 1.5/unit in computing Transfer Price of Power for the purpose of Deduction u/s 80-IA in respect

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

144B(1)(xvi)(b) of \nthe Act.\n6.1 In support of the ground so taken the ld. AR of the assessee \nsubmitted that the said ground being technical in nature is not \nbeing pressed in the interest of substantive justice. Hence, the said \nground is not being adjudicated. Ground No. 1 of appeal is \ntherefore dismissed.\n7. Ground

SUPREME BUILDESTATES PVT LTD,MADANGANJ- KISHANGARH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2 AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144B of the Act on 16.09.2022 assessing the total income at Rs.22,60,70,650/- 6.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision and order of the AO, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal. 7. It is contended by the appellant that being a closely held company having income from funds available to the company which is being

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\r\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in\r\nsections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).\"\r\n27. It is established principle of interpretation of statutes, that the Parliament is\r\npresumed to be not extravagant, in using the words

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

section 143(3) & 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act (here in after “Act”), by the AO. Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT 2.1 In ITA No. 788/JPR/2023 the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

section 143(3) & 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act (here in after “Act”), by the AO. Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT 2.1 In ITA No. 788/JPR/2023 the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty

SYLVAN GREENS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation of Rs.10,77,958/-. The assessee was required to subtract the subsidy amount from the assets to ascertain the WDV assets. Accordingly, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after recording the reasons for reopening and obtaining approval from the competent authority. 2.2 The notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and duly served

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)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is void ab-initio and deserves to be quashed. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 16,56,453/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged unexplained

SOYALA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,TONK vs. ITO, TONK, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144B of the IT Act, 1961, after duly considering the submissions enclosing 6 Soyala Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Tonk. therewith relevant documents filed by the assessee, by passing the impugned order with an assessed income of Rs. 6,77,341/- on account of proposed additionon account of Interest income under section

ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. ACITDCIT, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

7. In view of the above reasons and findings, this appeal deserves to be allowed

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

Section 144B of the Act, and also simultaneously directing initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act. 2.1 In its return of income for the said assessment year, the assessee company had shown total income of Rs.1,02,52,940/-. 2.2. The assessment order came to be passed after the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

RAM KHILARI MEENA,DAUSA vs. ITO, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by Assessment Unit of Income Tax Department [ for short AO]. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. That the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law in sustaining the addition made by ld. AO on account of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of land

MODERN INSULATORS LIMITED,ABU ROAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX CIRCLE 6 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

depreciation of M/s Modern Terry Towels Ltd amounting to Rs.11,97,19,742/- is illegal & unjustified. 4 That the learned CIT-'A' has erred in holding that in case, considering the facts and circumstance of the present case, there is no compliance of the principles held in the referred judgement of the Hon 'ble Delhi High Court and the circulars

DIVYA AGROFOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT,ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA RAJASTHAN

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

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

section 144B of the Income Tax Act, [for short Act ] by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [ for short AO ]. 2 Divya Agrofood Product Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That the Ld. CIT(A)-Faceless grossly erred in passing the ex-parte order. 2. That the Ld. AO grossly erred in reopening

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

depreciation on the same.\nHence, the justification of the same to be financed by Sh. Sandeep Yadav\nthrough his individual income is not justified neither appellant company has given\nany other record of payment towards car in this regard. The appellant has also\nfiled a copy of FIR dated 20.11.2013 filed by Sh. Sandeep Yadav with Thana\nDharuhera, District Rewari

WHEATONS DESIGN PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT / DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Hearing.”

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) the new plea is admissible. Therefore, the additional ground raised by the assessee can be adjudicated on the basis of the facts and material available