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

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

264 (Raj.) wherein it was held that the duty of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment does not extend beyond the furnishing of all the primary facts before the assessing authority and the AO was satisfied with the said disclosure of the assessee in the original assessment. Therefore, once the assessee

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation disallowed on catalyst. 10. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 461 & 575/JP/2015 for the A.Y. 2011-12 at page 12 para 21 as under :- “21. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties, perused the material available on the record and the earlier

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation disallowed on catalyst. 10. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 461 & 575/JP/2015 for the A.Y. 2011-12 at page 12 para 21 as under :- “21. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties, perused the material available on the record and the earlier

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation disallowed on catalyst. 10. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 461 & 575/JP/2015 for the A.Y. 2011-12 at page 12 para 21 as under :- “21. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties, perused the material available on the record and the earlier

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

264\nReopening of assessment - claim of additional depreciation and also in respect of claim for grant\nof deduction under Section

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to\n153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).\n\n5\n\nITA No. 1393/JPR/2024\nShri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur.\n\n2.2 The expression 'believe" in section 147 requires an objective satisfaction based on definite\nmaterial

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

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct. (Emphasis Supplied) In the following cases the excess stock was upheld as taxable in the context of section 69/698 of the Act:- In the case of Neeraj Agrawal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2023] 152 taxmann.com 632 (Allahabad-Trib.) it is held

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

depreciation on Catalyst: “21. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties, perused the material available on the record and the earlier orders passed by the Coordinate Bench. In assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2006-07 passed in ITA No. 268/JP/2010 order dated 31/10/2011, the Coordinate Bench has held as under:- “3.3 This issue has been

JCIT, RANG-2, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED, KOTA

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

depreciation on Catalyst: “21. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties, perused the material available on the record and the earlier orders passed by the Coordinate Bench. In assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2006-07 passed in ITA No. 268/JP/2010 order dated 31/10/2011, the Coordinate Bench has held as under:- “3.3 This issue has been

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

section 147 of I.T Act in- spite of the fact that no income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 by the reasons of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the said assessment year. 5.1 The ld. A/R further submitted that

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

section 147 of I.T Act in- spite of the fact that no income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 by the reasons of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the said assessment year. 5.1 The ld. A/R further submitted that

M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

264 has held in para 5 to 13 as under :- “5. Indisputably, as per the provision of Section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer is empowered to initiate the re- assessment proceedings if any income of the assessee chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. But then, before initiating the re-assessment proceedings

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

264 and submitted that reopening based on change of opinion is not permissible. The ld. AR has also relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal dated 12.04.2016 in case of Smt. Rama Goyal vs. ITO in ITA No. 465/JP/2016. He has also referred to a number of decisions on this point and has submitted that reopening

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

264 and submitted that reopening based on change of opinion is not permissible. The ld. AR has also relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal dated 12.04.2016 in case of Smt. Rama Goyal vs. ITO in ITA No. 465/JP/2016. He has also referred to a number of decisions on this point and has submitted that reopening

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

264 (Chennai)/[2008] 117 TTJ 110 (Chennai) [14-09-2007] upheld the disallowance of section 10A benefit claimed in the covering letter of the return filed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is also well-settled on the anvil of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in SunEngineering Works (P) Ltd 's case (supra) that no fresh exemption/benefit

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

264 (Chennai)/[2008] 117 TTJ 110 (Chennai) [14-09-2007] upheld the disallowance of section 10A benefit claimed in the covering letter of the return filed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act. It is also well-settled on the anvil of Hon'ble Apex Court decision in SunEngineering Works (P) Ltd 's case (supra) that no fresh exemption/benefit