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

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

depreciation as application of income. 4. The first question that arises in the present appeal is the entitlement of the assessee society to exemption under section 11 of the Act. The relevant provisions which govern the exemption under section 11, are contained in section 2(15), 11, 12 ,12A, 12AA read with section 13 of the Act. 5. Section

M/S GIE JEWELS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

234 and rejecting the application filed by the assessee u/s 154 of the Act. 3. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that while filing the return of income the assessee made payment of alternative minimum tax under the provisions of section 115JC however, while completing the assessment the AO charged interest u/s 234B for not paying

RAJASTHAN STATE TEXT BOOK BOARD,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

depreciation or repairs or replacement, improvement, extension or maintenance of the property of the Board or for any other purpose conducive to the interest of the Board out of its receipts, howsoever from donations, loans, advance, sale of books or otherwise; (17) To invest in such securities as the Board may determine from time to time and to deal with

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 30.08.2017 which got served upon the assessee through registered post on 31.08.2017. In compliance with the notice the assessee filed the return of income on 04.09.2017 declaring the same income as it was filed and assessed as such. The reasons recorded were as requested provided to the assessee, the assessee

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

234 ITR 865, 869, 870 (Pat).it is held “Resort to section 150 (1) can be taken only in cases where it becomes necessary to make assessment or reassessment or recomputation in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction pursuant to an appellate order passed by the appellate authority or pursuant to any order in reference

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

234 A,B,C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging\nof any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of\nlaw and facts, may kindly be deleted in full.\n4. The appellant prays your honors indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any\nof the grounds of the appeal on or before

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

234 A,B,C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging\nof any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of\nlaw and facts, may kindly be deleted in full.\n4. The appellant prays your honors indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any\nof the grounds of the appeal on or before

SHRI MADHOPUR KRAYA VIKRAYA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,SHRIMADHOPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEEM KA THANA, NEEM KA THANA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

234/- out of total gross profit of Rs. 60,55,515/to give ratio of 48.44% and 51.56% to the total gross profit. Hence, the net profit on 5 Shri Madhopur Kraya Vikraya Sahkari samiti Ltd. specified and non specified items should also be worked out in the ratio of GP rate is 48.44% and 51.56% and not in the ratio

KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: or at the time of hearing of

section 145(3) of the Act, @ NP @8% is worked out which comes to Rs. 6,99,05,941/- which also includes profit of Rs. 12,82,234/- of contract work done with IRCON at Sri Lanka. Thus, after reducing the above profit the net Profit comes to Rs. 6,86,23,707/- (6,99,05,941-12,82,234

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

234 (Kerala)/[2016] 240 Taxman 168 (Kerala)/[2016] 385 ITR 624 (Kerala)/[2016] 287 CTR 187 (Kerala) [22-03-2016] "18. On going through Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, what we find is that if the authority specified therein has reason to believe that any person to whom a summons under sub-section (1) of section

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

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

234 days, no evidences and no reconciliation have been filed by the appellant in support of the lower figures of profit, the presumption u/s 292C has not been proved wrong by the appellant, thus the U Turn is not a valid retraction. In the appeal, the Appellant has also not placed on record the complete facts of the issue/income

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

section 263 by the Commissioner proper and valid. [Para 16] (c) In the case of Jeevan Investment & Finance (P.) ltd. Vs CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 552 (Bombay], it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that: " ..... merely asking a question which goes to the root of the matter and not carrying it further is a case

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. KANHIYA LAL CHOUDHARY, TONK

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue i

section 143(3) of the act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act) was framed vide order dated 12/03/2014. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has made rejection of books of account and remitted the profit. The Assessing Officer applied 11.5% of Net Profit subject to depreciation also made addition on account of income from other sources i.e. interest

SHRI MANOJ KUMAR LOHIYA,SIKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

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

section 145(3). The provision so invoked by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 3.2 Alternatively and without prejudice the ld. AO further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Section 40(a)(ia) provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are generally allowed under the general section. The computation u/s.29 has to be made u/s.145 on the basis of books of account regularly maintained by the assessee which the Assessing Officer did by estimating the profit at 5% of the sales. The learned Counsel

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

234\nTaxman 771(SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP\nagainst High Court's order, wherein it was held that since assessee himself\nhad stated in sworn statement during search and seizure about his\nundisclosed income tax was to be levied on basis of admission without\nscrutinizing documents. The ld. AO also noted that the statement made

MEWA SINGH BOLA,JHUNJHUNU vs. ADIT, JAIPUR

In the result, ITA Nos. 527/JP/2013 and 541/JP/2013 are allowed

Section 143(3) of the Act was framed vide order dated 22/12/2010. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made various additions in respect of interest received from M/s Jhunjhunu Academic Samiti, remittances received from abroad amounting to Rs. 64,73,555/-, interest from Sh. Dilip Modi and Smt. Nirija Modi amounting to Rs. 12,00,000/- and undisclosed interest