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)

45,363/-for AY 2016-17 and Rs.4,89,87,627/- for AY 2018-19. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) after distinguishing the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para 5.4& 5.5, Pg56-57 of the order and after relying on the various case laws at Para 5.6, Pg57-60, at Para 5.7, Pg60 of the order held that

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)

45,363/-for AY 2016-17 and Rs.4,89,87,627/- for AY 2018-19. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) after distinguishing the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para 5.4& 5.5, Pg56-57 of the order and after relying on the various case laws at Para 5.6, Pg57-60, at Para 5.7, Pg60 of the order held that

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

depreciable asset is liable to be excluded from calculation of deemed profits under section 115JA - Held, yes.” (i)In ITO v. Suraj Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2008] 21 SOT 79 (Mum.), Mumbai Tribunal again held that capital receipts which do not constitute income under the Act cannot be brought to tax net by employing the mechanism of section 115JB. The Tribunal

SHRI BHANWAR LAL KHICHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

45 M/s Singhania University vs. CIT(E) 51. It was submitted by the ld CIT DR that there is no dispute that the exemption u/s 10(23C)(vi) was granted to the assessee University on the basis of its object filed at the time of grant of approval and according to which the assessee University can impart education

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

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

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

depreciable asset is liable to be excluded from calculation of deemed profits under section 115JA - Held, yes.”\n(i) In ITO v. Suraj Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2008] 21 SOT 79 (Mum.), Mumbai Tribunal again held that capital receipts which do not constitute income under the Act cannot be brought to tax net by employing the mechanism of section 115JB

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

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed to be deleted. Ground No.2 (AY 2017-18) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts & in law in confirming the trading addition

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, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed to be deleted. Ground No.2 (AY 2017-18) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts & in law in confirming the trading addition

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, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed to be deleted. Ground No.2 (AY 2017-18) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts & in law in confirming the trading addition

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 (Accountant Member)

4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed to be deleted. Ground No.2 (AY 2017-18) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts & in law in confirming the trading addition

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

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed to be deleted. Ground No.2 (AY 2017-18) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts & in law in confirming the trading addition

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)

4,64,128 6,23,565 9,02,640 15,79,726 57,74,022 36,20,436 Balance In view of above, addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) in respect of investment made be directed to be deleted. Ground No.2 (AY 2017-18) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts & in law in confirming the trading addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

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

45,000 24 Misc Exppenses 4,38,107 - 4,38,107 TOTAL 1,04,16,049/- 4.7 The aggregate of above referred three categories works out to Rs. 49,32,482 + 27,70,215 + 1,04,16,049 totaling Rs. 1,81,18,746/-. Thus, detailed submission already submitted before the authorities below and already gone through detailed scrutiny assessment

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

45,760/-. Thereafter, assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 12.12.2015 and income was assessed at Rs. 4,62,57,217/-, so the regular assessment was finalized. 7. A notice under section 153A of the Act for this year was on issued on 21.08.2018 and pursuant to that notice the assessee e-filed the return

M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

45,760/-. Thereafter, assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 12.12.2015 and income was assessed at Rs. 4,62,57,217/-, so the regular assessment was finalized. 7. A notice under section 153A of the Act for this year was on issued on 21.08.2018 and pursuant to that notice the assessee e-filed the return

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

4 of appeal is therefore allowed" In this regard, it is worthwhile to mention that Hon'ble ITAT has completely ignored the provision of section 80A(5) of the Act. Section 80A(5) states that no deduction shall be allowed to the assessee in case of failure to make the claim of deduction under chapter VIA in the return