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

6) to section 115JB of the Act. Therefore this decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court doesn’t support the case of the assessee company rather our reading of the provisions of sub-section (5) to Section 115JB has been fortified by this decision.”\n36. Coordinate bench noted that the issue has been decided in the case of Safeflex

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

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

depreciation claimed by assessee company. [PB : 39] Rs. 6,13,624. • Complete details of the share subscribers and also The authenticity of credits, share capital share premium furnished. [PB : 39] • Change in shareholding pattern had no impact on the and share premium has not been issue under consideration in limited scrutiny. established. • Share premium was to be examined in limited

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

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)

6) were also issued to M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd on 09.07.2013 & 05.10.2018 whose account was report as suspicious but the same were returned unserved by the postal authorities with remarks ‘ not known’ / ‘moved’. Thereafter, KYC of M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd was called for from the UCO Bank and it is noticed that the address given

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)

195 2,22,824 Business 6 14,29,557 8,56,699 5,72,858 Promotion Exp 7 Computer Exp 3,34,587 1,71,127 1,63,460 8 Courrier Exp 3,24,607 1,34,747 1,89,860 Desing & 9 15,99,288 8,01,126 7,98,162 Graphics 12 Flex Printing

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

6) to \nsection 115JB of the Act. Therefore this decision of the Hon’ble \nMadras High Court doesn’t support the case of the assessee \ncompany rather our reading of the provisions of sub-section (5) to \nSection 115JB has been fortified by this decision.”\n36. Coordinate bench noted that the issue has been decided in \nthe case of Safeflex

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)

depreciation on leasehold rights u/s 32(1)(ii) being business or commercial right acquired during the year under consideration. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, necessary direction may be given to the AO to allow interest on TDS amounting to Rs. 7,99,142/- debited to the Statement of P & L as an allowable

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 thereof should not be disallowed. The reply of the assessee justifying his claim submitted vide letter dated 24.10.2014 Justification of payment made to person specified u/s.40A(2)(b) : During the year under consideration assessee firm has made interest payment Rs.71,47,640/- to the relatives which are covered u/ s.40A(2)(b) Details of the same are as under

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 thereof should not be disallowed. The reply of the assessee justifying his claim submitted vide letter dated 24.10.2014 Justification of payment made to person specified u/s.40A(2)(b) : During the year under consideration assessee firm has made interest payment Rs.71,47,640/- to the relatives which are covered u/ s.40A(2)(b) Details of the same are as under

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 thereof should not be disallowed. The reply of the assessee justifying his claim submitted vide letter dated 24.10.2014 Justification of payment made to person specified u/s.40A(2)(b) : During the year under consideration assessee firm has made interest payment Rs.71,47,640/- to the relatives which are covered u/ s.40A(2)(b) Details of the same are as under

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

M/S HARI OIL MILLS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(1), JAIPUR

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

195/- & unabsorbed depreciation of 4 M/s Hari Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Rs.16,40,021/- and after allowing the set off of the same, there would not remained any income chargeable to tax. The Ld. CIT(A) without deciding this ground of assessee has confirmed the addition. 6. It was further submitted that even if there is delay

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

195), 3 February 2015 (pg 205) and 6 February 2015 (pg 219)where details pertaining to the reasons for the fall in gross profit (hereinafter referred to as 'GP') ratio as well as explanation for the negative impact 50 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. throughout the industry; excerpts from the annual reports of companies

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

195), 3 February 2015 (pg 205) and 6 February 2015 (pg 219)where details pertaining to the reasons for the fall in gross profit (hereinafter referred to as 'GP') ratio as well as explanation for the negative impact 50 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. throughout the industry; excerpts from the annual reports of companies

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

195), 3 February 2015 (pg 205) and 6 February 2015 (pg 219)where details pertaining to the reasons for the fall in gross profit (hereinafter referred to as 'GP') ratio as well as explanation for the negative impact 50 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. throughout the industry; excerpts from the annual reports of companies

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-1, KOTA vs. SHRI CHANDI RAM, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

195/- an award for Anandpuri Canal Work & Rs 1,69,37,559/- for Annas Syphon Work vide order of Supreme Court in SLP no. 11185-86 of 2011 (order dt. 16/08/11) in civil suit filed against the irrigation department. The amount of award became final as it was finally decided by Apex Court dismissing the irrigation department's appeal