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

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)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned

RAM NIWAS MODI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT-EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are disposed off\nthereby allowing the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

depreciation and 44.48% with\nDepreciation (Pg. 12 of CIT order). Thus, such a huge amount of profit was found\nobjectionable. Again the Id. CIT at pg. 13 of the order has taken the figures from the\ncase of CIT vs Queen's Education Society (Uttarakhand high court), the profit margins\nwere 0.84% and 7.5% only. Thus, when this factual aspect

FATEHPURIA TRANSFORMERS AND WITCHGEARS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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)

depreciation has been set off against other income in earlier years. 3.The learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that despite Section 801A(5), the requirement to treat the undertaking as the only business of the assessee is from the "initial assessment year" and not from the year of commencement of generation/distribution of power. 4. The learned

AYUB ALI,CHURU vs. PCIT-3, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Pcit On Which No Adverse Finding Was Given.”

260/- for discount on CT Test, MRI Test for BPL and others as all relevant expenditure pertaining to maintenance of CT scan and MRI machine, Laser image film, reporting fees on test, electricity and water expenses, depreciation. None of the issue was subject matter of appeal as claimed by the assessee. 6. While holding so, AO failed to take note

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

depreciation.\nThe assessee filed the appeal before the Id. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur which\nwas disposed off vide order 04-04-2018 by the Id. CIT(A). After giving the\neffect of the above order, the assessed income was reduced to\nRs.1,05,94,050/- which was as declared in the revised return of income\nfiled on 19.10.2015. Since, there

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)

Depreciation/ Fixed Asset chart (PB 33-34) also but a perusal of the Balance Sheet (PB 23) does not show any specific loan taken for this purpose only. Hence, it can't be said that there was any earmarked loan taken for this purpose and the interest was paid thereon, towards the addition of the fixed assets. The very fact

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 37(1) but failed to produce relevant evidence to justify said expenditure, Assessing Officer was justified in making adhoc disallowance of same. 5.1.15 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sandeep Marwah [2019] 101 taxmann.com 123 (Delhi)/[2019] 260 Taxman 231 has held as under: Where assessee claimed deduction in respect of business promotion expenses

DIVYA AGROFOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT,ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA RAJASTHAN

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

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

section 144B of the Income Tax Act, [for short Act ] by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [ for short AO ]. 2 Divya Agrofood Product Pvt. Ltd. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That the Ld. CIT(A)-Faceless grossly erred in passing the ex-parte order. 2. That the Ld. AO grossly erred in reopening

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

260/-,\n38,66,010/- and 46,44,500/- respectively. The huge profits shown by the\nlender proves its credit worthiness beyond any doubt.\n\n(f) The copy of Audited Financial Statements of lender company along\nwith Directors Report for FY 2013-14 (CIT(A) PBP-75-90) is enclosed to\nfurther strengthen the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness

KAILASH CHAND,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation, what the authorities below have taxed is the Gross Receipts but not the income which is against the very concept under the Income Tax Act. Kindly refer Sanath Kumar Murali v ITO & Ors) Karnataka HC Citation (2023) 333 CTR (Kar) 189. 3.4 Interestingly, the AO himself made ad hoc disallowance

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)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, AJMER vs. SHRI BHAGCHAND JAIN, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

260 (Bom), DCIT v. Mewar Textile Mills Ltd. 21 Tax World 821 (JP). 2.1 The ld.CIT(A) did not appreciate the facts and the legal position in as much as the law u/s145(3) specifically provides only three basis to invoke S. 145, viz(i) Where the AO is not satisfied about the correctness/completeness of the accounts (ii) where

RAJNI TAK,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Section 43(5)(b) it is clearly provided that in respect of stocks and shares entered in to by a dealer or investor therein to guard against loss in his holding of stocks and shares through price fluctuations the same cannot be treated as Speculative Transaction. (Here in our case holding of shares is important and not denied