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

SMT. NISHA JAIN,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

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

211/-. The claim of depreciation as per audited accounts has been accepted by AO at Rs.9,22,183/-. Hence, the addition to this extent is apparently incorrect. Similarly the difference in the interest expenditure is Rs.34,012/- which is incorrect in as much as the interest is paid either to the bank or to M/s R.C. Jain Invest

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Section 10 of The General Clauses Act, 1897 which specifies that where any act etc. is to be done within a prescribed period by any Central Act or Regulation and if the court/ office is closed on that day then the act etc. shall be considered as done in due time if it is done the next day on which

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

211 ITR 0035\nPenalty under s.271(1)(c)—Concealment—Assessee making\nclaims for deductions for development rebate, depreciation,\ninterest and guarantee commission—Same disallowed by ITO—\nTribunal holding that claims of assessee, though rejected,\nwere bona fide-Same finding of fact—No case for penalty for\nconcealment is made out.\n(2) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RELIANCE\nPETROPRODUCTS

M/S. GANPATI GLOBAL PRIVATE LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD1(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

211 ITR 552, the Orissa High Court preferred the view expressed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to the view expressed by the Madras High Court in Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd.'s case [1985] 156 ITR 542 on the ground that the Madras case was based on a finding of fact that there was no direct connection between

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

211-TIOL- 72-SC-IT). 4.1.4 The powers conferred on the Assessing Officer under the Amended provisions are wide as has been clarified by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bawa Abhai Singh Vs. DCIT (117 Taxman 12) in which it has been held that — "The provisions of section 147, as amended with effect from

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Depreciation Claim 2. Investments/Advances/Loans 3. Refund Claim 4. Business Loss” As evident above, the complete scrutiny proceedings were initiated due to one of the reasons being ‘investments’ made by the Appellant. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Appellant vide submission dated 7 October 2019 (PB 36-45) provided the following information to the assessing officer in relation to ‘investments

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

211 ITR 993) which has also considered reasonable N.P rate of 12.5% in the case of Contractor. However, he has fairly reduced the Sub-contract work from the purview of such profit estimation and also fairly allowed Interest and Depreciation on the estimated Net Profit. Under the above circumstances, I am in agreement with the estimation done

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

MOHD. CONST. CO.,KOTA vs. ADDL. CIT, KOTA

section 145(3) are clearly applicable in the case of assessee. As regards application of the profit rate, it may be mentioned that the assessee is carrying out such business with heavy utilization of capital assets and that is the reason that the depreciation claim of the assessee is for Rs.34,31,532/-. Due to such capital investment, the assessee

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 of Rs.25,282/- totaling to Rs.4,77,64,147/- are not considered as business expenditure and hereby added to the income of the assessee.” 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 446/JP/2012, 764/JP2013 & 158/JP/2015 pertaining to assessment years

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 of Rs.25,282/- totaling to Rs.4,77,64,147/- are not considered as business expenditure and hereby added to the income of the assessee.” 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 446/JP/2012, 764/JP2013 & 158/JP/2015 pertaining to assessment years

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 of Rs.25,282/- totaling to Rs.4,77,64,147/- are not considered as business expenditure and hereby added to the income of the assessee.” 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 446/JP/2012, 764/JP2013 & 158/JP/2015 pertaining to assessment years

GHODAWAT HOTELS PVT.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(HQ), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

depreciation is a statutory deduction available to assessee and other expenses claimed were exclusively incurred for business expenses. Thus the disallowance so sustained deserves to be deleted. 4 M/s. Ghodawat Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (HQ), Circle- 6, Jaipur . 2.1 First of all, we take up the grounds of appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 which

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

211/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of captive power plant. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC,Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,12,32,05,778/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Solid Waste

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

211/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of captive power plant. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC,Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,12,32,05,778/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Solid Waste

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

211/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of captive power plant. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC,Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,12,32,05,778/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Solid Waste

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

211/- on \naccount of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of captive power plant.\n2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned \nCIT(A), NFAC,Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the \nassessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 1,12,32,05,778/- on \naccount of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Solid Waste