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

BPS SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,CHOUDHARY CHARAN SINGH, SIKAR vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

208/- 3. Taxable income Rs.2,52,82,658/- 4. Rounded off Rs. 2,52,80,660/- 3. In nut shell, the Assessing Officer was of the view that provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act were attracted, and, accordingly, he denied benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act to the assessee and raised tax liability

BPS SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,CHOUDHARY CHARAN SINGH, SIKAR vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

208/- 3. Taxable income Rs.2,52,82,658/- 4. Rounded off Rs. 2,52,80,660/- 3. In nut shell, the Assessing Officer was of the view that provisions of section 13(1)(d) of the Act were attracted, and, accordingly, he denied benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act to the assessee and raised tax liability

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. PARADISE PROPERTIES, SAROJNI MARG, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

section 16 ITA No. 324/JP/2024 & CO No. 12/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Paradise Properties 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in making the addition of Rs. 97,12,126/-by disallowing interest expenses claimed by the assessee on unsecured

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation was examined u/s 143(3), thus the\naction of ld PCIT (Admin) in raising doubts to the settled issue is an attempt to\nunsettle the past history and such direction deserves to be struck down.\n5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. PCIT (Admin) has\ngrossly erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous

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

208, 224), Premkunj\nCommotrade P Ltd (CIT(A) PBP 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

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

section 14A(1), deduction of that expenditure is not to be allowed which has been incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. Axiomatically, it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is includible in total income that

ADITYA CEMENT,BEHROR vs. ITO, BEHROR

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

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

depreciation. Finally, it filed ITR on 26.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.30,00,650/- During assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised computation including the surrendered amount under the head “Income from business & profession” and explaining that there being no column in the ITR to show “Surrendered business income”, it had shown the same under the head “Income from other

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

208 20000+1070000+9756250) on basis of WhatsApp messages have been extracted from the mobile of the appellant. These messages relate to the funds received/given. Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT However it has been explained during course of assessment proceeding that the message at Page 34 of the show cause notice does not relate to the appellant. Further, message

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

208 20000+1070000+9756250) on basis of WhatsApp messages have been extracted from the mobile of the appellant. These messages relate to the funds received/given. Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT However it has been explained during course of assessment proceeding that the message at Page 34 of the show cause notice does not relate to the appellant. Further, message

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

208 20000+1070000+9756250) on basis of WhatsApp messages have been extracted from the mobile of the appellant. These messages relate to the funds received/given. Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT However it has been explained during course of assessment proceeding that the message at Page 34 of the show cause notice does not relate to the appellant. Further, message

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

208 20000+1070000+9756250) on basis of WhatsApp messages have been extracted from the mobile of the appellant. These messages relate to the funds received/given. Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT However it has been explained during course of assessment proceeding that the message at Page 34 of the show cause notice does not relate to the appellant. Further, message

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

208 20000+1070000+9756250) on basis of WhatsApp messages have been extracted from the mobile of the appellant. These messages relate to the funds received/given. Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT However it has been explained during course of assessment proceeding that the message at Page 34 of the show cause notice does not relate to the appellant. Further, message

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

depreciation. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and no notice u/s 143(2) was issued. Thereafter AO after approval from competent authority- initiated reassessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s 148 on 28-03- 2019 after recording reasons. As the revenue was having the information which was received from Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Jaipur vide his office letter

CHAND MONAMMAD,AJMER vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), AJMER

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

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

section 193 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 the same is punishable offence as being a false evidence. Therefore, it becomes a vital supporting evidence and the authenticity of the same cannot be rejected holding it just a self serving declaration unless some contrary facts are found. Therefore, there is complete consistency in the statement of the assessee and no contradiction