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. 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)

253 ITR 633 (Rajasthan), wherein the assessee had raised a claim for weighted deduction under section 35B during the assessment proceedings before the AO. The Hon’ble Court upheld the decision of Tribunal and held that the Appellate Authority has the power to consider a larger amount if the materials supporting that claim are already available on record

M/S JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay of 932 days in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Now, coming to the merits of the case, the assessee has marched

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Id. AO of rejecting the claim of the assessee trust, under section 24(a), being 30 percent of the rental income, amounting to Rs. 4,93,435 carmed by the assessee trust. The action

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

JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

253 ITR 593 (Supra).Reading of the proviso to Section 142 is very clear that the legislature has clearlycontemplated that in a case, where the whole or part of the relevant income is not exempted under Section 11 by virtue of violation of Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, tax shall be levied on the relevant income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

253(4) of the Act endorses the situation of finality with regard to the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal. In view of the above reasons, the Appellate Tribunal under resort to rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, would be justified to consider the contention raised by the assessee in regard to which the first appellate

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA , KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 5 of Limitation Act in filling of appeal Hon’ble Sir (s) The humble assessee appellant applicant respectfully prays for the condonation of delay in the filling of appeal for the following reason 1 That the Id. CIT (Appeals) passed his order on 21.10.2024 and the same was uploaded

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 5 of Limitation Act in filling of appeal Hon’ble Sir (s) The humble assessee appellant applicant respectfully prays for the condonation of delay in the filling of appeal for the following reason 1 That the Id. CIT (Appeals) passed his order on 21.10.2024 and the same was uploaded

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)

253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the appeal was required to be filed on or before 3rd August, 2024. However, the same could not be filed in time due to the reason that our counsel Shri Ravindra Kumar Jain, Advocate had to be admitted in hospital on 10.07.2024 for cardiac problem and was operated

RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

section 43B. In view of the mandate of clause (a) of section 47 ITA No. 253/JP/2015 along with 13 other appeals. M/s Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. 43B of the Act, we do not see any reason to interfere into the order of the Ld. CIT(A), same is hereby affirmed, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

MAYUR GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

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

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

253 ITR 798 (SC). Prayer: In view of above facts and circumstance and with the sympathy and settled legal position, the delay so caused may kindly be condoned.” 7 Mayur Global Pvt. Ltd. vs.ITO In support of the contention so raised the assessee filed an affidavit support of the contention so raised in filing the appeal which is delayed

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS AND FEBRICATIONS PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 KOTA , KOTA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice-that being the life- purpose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

5. We have heard ld. DR as well as AR and considered the relevant material on record. Though the issue in quantum appeal has been decided against the assessee by this Tribunal however, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied on account of disallowance of excess depreciation for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07 vide order dated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

5. We have heard ld. DR as well as AR and considered the relevant material on record. Though the issue in quantum appeal has been decided against the assessee by this Tribunal however, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied on account of disallowance of excess depreciation for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07 vide order dated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

5. We have heard ld. DR as well as AR and considered the relevant material on record. Though the issue in quantum appeal has been decided against the assessee by this Tribunal however, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied on account of disallowance of excess depreciation for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07 vide order dated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

5. We have heard ld. DR as well as AR and considered the relevant material on record. Though the issue in quantum appeal has been decided against the assessee by this Tribunal however, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied on account of disallowance of excess depreciation for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07 vide order dated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

5. We have heard ld. DR as well as AR and considered the relevant material on record. Though the issue in quantum appeal has been decided against the assessee by this Tribunal however, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied on account of disallowance of excess depreciation for the assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04, 2006-07 vide order dated

HOLIDAY TRIANGLE TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

253/- per share. In total share premium of Rs. 52,89,920/- was received by the assessee during the year under consideration. We note that the Ld AO doubted on such premium by stating that the assessee Company was a continuous loss making company and hence no prudent person would invest in a company with poor financial results and that