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

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

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

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation, and MAT credit set-off. The ld. DR vide submission dated 14.07.2025 further submitted as under : I. Limitation Period Under Section 149(1)(b) is Fully Alive The assessee has contended that the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation. However, this contention is devoid of merit in view of the amended 29 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO provisions

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

43 Lovely promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT predecessor in office of the Assessing officer formed an opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Mere change of opinion is not valid grounds for reopening the assessment. 4. Sir, we humbly submit that the present case is classic example of mere change in opinion despite being settled legal preposition that

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

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)

b. Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench allowed the appeal of appellant for 2008-09 vide order dated 27/02/2017 c. Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench allowed the appeal of appellant for 2009-10 in ITA No. 264/JP/2016 vide order dated 13/07/2017 d. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court where Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal of the Department

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

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Depreciation of Rs. 1,00,525/-) for the year under consideration. The Humble Appellant has also declared sale proceeds of building amounting of Rs. 61,00,000/- and after claiming indexing benefit, declared Long term capital loss of Rs. 50,450/-. That the Humble Appellant has claimed the cost of Property as on 01-04-1981 at Rs. 6

SYLVAN GREENS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

b) The assessee would like to enclose here sanction letter dated 01.12.2011 related to subsidy The same was also enclosed with reply submitted on 24th Jan 2021. In such sanction at page no 4 that the peiod of sanction is 01.12.2011 to 30.03.2015 and also stated at pats 6 page 2 of the sanction that this being a new industrial

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

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

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

section 14A(1), deduction of that expenditure is not to be allowed which has been incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. Axiomatically, it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is includible in total income that

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

6 Copy of Case Law of ITAT, Amritsar (Nakodar Co-operative 33 - 38 Sugar Mills Ltd. v/s ACIT). 7 Copy of Case Law of Supreme Court of India (M/s Volkart 39 - 43 Brother, Bombay v/s T.S. Balaram, I.T. Officer, Bombay) 8 Copy of Case Law of High Court Panjab-Haryana (M/s Nakodar 44 - 50 Co- operative Sugar Mills

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

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