ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

6) to section 115JB of the Act. Therefore this decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court doesn’t support the case of the assessee company rather our reading of the provisions of sub-section (5) to Section 115JB has been fortified by this decision.” 36. Coordinate bench noted that the issue has been decided in the case of Safeflex

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

43,373/- added with reference to the TP adjustments. The adjustment so made are as under:\na) Reduction in claim u/s 80-IA on power undertakings for an amount of Rs. 2,70,66,00,914/-.\nb) Reduction in claim u/s 80-IA on Solid Waste Management System for an amount of Rs. 90,55,18,397/-.\nc) Reduction

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

43, the Supreme Court held that when deduction under section 35(2) (iv) was allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation was to be allowed under section 32 on the same assets. There is a fundamental axiom that double deduction is not intended unless there is a clear statutory indication on the contrary. The Supreme Court

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

43, the Supreme Court held that when deduction under section 35(2) (iv) was allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation was to be allowed under section 32 on the same assets. There is a fundamental axiom that double deduction is not intended unless there is a clear statutory indication on the contrary. The Supreme Court

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

43, the Supreme Court held that when deduction under section 35(2) (iv) was allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation was to be allowed under section 32 on the same assets. There is a fundamental axiom that double deduction is not intended unless there is a clear statutory indication on the contrary. The Supreme Court

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTIONS, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

43, the Supreme Court held that when deduction under section 35(2) (iv) was allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation was to be allowed under section 32 on the same assets. There is a fundamental axiom that double deduction is not intended unless there is a clear statutory indication on the contrary. The Supreme Court

RAMBAGH GOLF CLUB,JAIPUR vs. ITO EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

43, the Supreme Court held that when deduction under section 35(2) (iv) was allowed in respect of capital expenditure on scientific research, no depreciation was to be allowed under section 32 on the same assets. There is a fundamental axiom that double deduction is not intended unless there is a clear statutory indication on the contrary. The Supreme Court

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

NIMBUS PIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

6 Nimbus Pipes Limited The case of the Appellant covered by the judgments of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, which is jurisdictional High Court of the appellant. Further the Appellant has relied on following Judgments:- 1. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Jaipur vs M/S State Bank of Bikaner And.....[2014 (5) TMI 222] Held that

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

depreciation claimed by assessee company. [PB : 39] Rs. 6,13,624. • Complete details of the share subscribers and also The authenticity of credits, share capital share premium furnished. [PB : 39] • Change in shareholding pattern had no impact on the and share premium has not been issue under consideration in limited scrutiny. established. • Share premium was to be examined in limited

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)

6. Liberty is granted to the ld AR to make all submissions in respect of allowability of disallowed contribution of the employees to PF and ESI under other relevant provisions in the interest of justice. This direction is being given because ld AR has submitted that as the amount is not allowable under section

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

6. Liberty is granted to the ld AR to make all submissions in respect of allowability of disallowed contribution of the employees to PF and ESI under other relevant provisions in the interest of justice. This direction is being given because ld AR has submitted that as the amount is not allowable under section

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)

6. Liberty is granted to the ld AR to make all submissions in respect of allowability of disallowed contribution of the employees to PF and ESI under other relevant provisions in the interest of justice. This direction is being given because ld AR has submitted that as the amount is not allowable under section

SODHANI SWEET PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing Section 43B [which opens with its non-obstante clause] was to primarily ensure that deductions otherwise permissible and hitherto claimed on mercantile basis, were expressly conditioned, in certain cases upon payment. In other words

OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

6, 2019 (Raj HC) i) Contribution towards provident fund — HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur [2014) Rajasthan High Court] binds and covers the dispute against the revenue. However, the learned counsel for the revenue informs that the Special leave to Petition filed

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

6) expressly provides for disallowance of the depreciation however this sub-section has been introduced w.e.f. A.Y. 2015-16. Ld. AR has further argued that in the case of the appellant in earlier years, the issue has also been discussed in detail by my learned predecessor in order in Appeal No. 759/JPR/2015-16 dt. 12.08.2016 for A.Y. 2008-09, whereby

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct