SCHOLAR'S EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,602-A, TRIMURTY DAVE APARTMENT, JAI SINGH HIGHWAY MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

Bench: The Cit(A), The Power Exercised By Him U/S 263 For Disallowing The Donation Paid To Other Society Would Not Fall In The Ambit Of Section 263. 3. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Finding Given By Ld. Cit That Once Exemption U/S 11 Is Withdrawn, Not Disallowing The Scholar’S Education Trust Of India Vs. Cit(E)

depreciation on fixed assets of Rs. 52,04,21,499/- which would be more than the amount of donation and thus no prejudice is caused to the Revenue and consequently holding the order passed by AO as erroneous & prejudicial to the interest of revenue is not as per law. 4. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground

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. 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

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

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

LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

depreciation and interest. (iv) The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.” Shri Laxmi Narain Agarwal Vs. ACIT 2. Ground No. 1 of assessee appeal is regarding validity of reassessment of income without any incriminating material found or seized during the search. The ld. AR of the assessee

LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

depreciation and interest. (iv) The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.” Shri Laxmi Narain Agarwal Vs. ACIT 2. Ground No. 1 of assessee appeal is regarding validity of reassessment of income without any incriminating material found or seized during the search. The ld. AR of the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

depreciation and interest. (iv) The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.” Shri Laxmi Narain Agarwal Vs. ACIT 2. Ground No. 1 of assessee appeal is regarding validity of reassessment of income without any incriminating material found or seized during the search. The ld. AR of the assessee

LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

depreciation and interest. (iv) The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.” Shri Laxmi Narain Agarwal Vs. ACIT 2. Ground No. 1 of assessee appeal is regarding validity of reassessment of income without any incriminating material found or seized during the search. The ld. AR of the assessee

LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

depreciation and interest. (iv) The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.” Shri Laxmi Narain Agarwal Vs. ACIT 2. Ground No. 1 of assessee appeal is regarding validity of reassessment of income without any incriminating material found or seized during the search. The ld. AR of the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

depreciation and interest. (iv) The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.” Shri Laxmi Narain Agarwal Vs. ACIT 2. Ground No. 1 of assessee appeal is regarding validity of reassessment of income without any incriminating material found or seized during the search. The ld. AR of the assessee

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. M/S MODERN INSULATORS LTD., JAIPUR

394 of the Companies Act. However, for sick companies this power is vested with BIFR. Section 32(1)of SICA states that provisions of SICA and scheme framed there under shall have effect not withstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law. Further Section 32(2) of SICA further provides that Section 72A of the Income Tax Act (carry forward

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

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

394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 265 CTR (Raj) 59 : (2014) 98 DTR (Raj) 109 : (2013) 35 taxmann.com 616 (Raj) [Rajasthan High Court] and NipsoPolyfabriks (supra

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 265 CTR (Raj) 59 : (2014) 98 DTR (Raj) 109 : (2013) 35 taxmann.com 616 (Raj) [Rajasthan High Court] and Nipso

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 265 CTR (Raj) 59 : (2014) 98 DTR (Raj) 109 : (2013) 35 taxmann.com 616 (Raj) [Rajasthan High Court] and Nipso

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 265 CTR (Raj) 59 : (2014) 98 DTR (Raj) 109 : (2013) 35 taxmann.com 616 (Raj) [Rajasthan High Court] and Nipso

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

394 : (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) (Karnataka High Court).; CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 265 CTR (Raj) 59 : (2014) 98 DTR (Raj) 109 : (2013) 35 taxmann.com 616 (Raj) [Rajasthan High Court] and Nipso