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)

65,591/- on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF and ESI. The Bench has observed that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs CIT, 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) held that the provision of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply to employee’s contribution

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)

65,591/- on account of delayed payment of employees contribution towards PF and ESI. The Bench has observed that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs CIT, 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) held that the provision of Section 43B of the Act shall not apply to employee’s contribution

BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE -4-JAIPUR, RJN-C-(104)(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

65,422/- by making 4 Bajrang Wire Products (India) Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur. an addition of Rs. 6,71,052/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT (A), who dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable Being dis-satisfied with the order of the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has come in appeal before

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)

depreciation under section 32(1) would mean double deduction, which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 43/[1992] 65

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)

65,210 the appellant has claimed a refund of Rs. 16,99,26,055 in the original return of income filed on 30.11.2019. 9 Shree Cement Limited vs. ACIT The above return was processed vide intimation as per provision of section 143(1) of the Act on 15.01.2021. While processing that ITR learned Assistant Director of Income Tax CPC Bangalore

DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, 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)

65,25,700/-. The return of the assessee company was processed u/s 143(1) vide intimation dated 24-12-2021 wherein the AO (CPC) made an addition of Rs.77,952/- for late deposit of contribution to ESI/PF u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

65,14,702/- 1,15,37,323/- 2008-09 1,11,20,120/- 1,62,58,346/- 2009-10 1,35,75,701/- 41,10,041/- 2010-11 1,23,49,760/- 52,66,074/- 2011-12 2,27,78,950/- 72,09,303/- From the above table, it can be seen that the Development fees is utilized in creation

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

65 (High Court-Guj), the\nassessing officer in his penalty order noted as under: - “In view of the above\nfacts, it is clear that the assessee concealed income/furnished inaccurate\nparticulars of income. I, therefore, consider it a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271\n(1) (c)\" Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the above case held that, where

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

65. Pursuant to the above approval, the assessee company has constructed the anicut at its own cost and has incurred an expenditure of Rs 1,91,59,945 during the year under consideration. The specification and design shall be approved by the Chief Engineer, ID & R unit Jaipur. The quality assurance and supervision shall be carried out by IMTI Kota

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

65. Pursuant to the above approval, the assessee company has constructed the anicut at its own cost and has incurred an expenditure of Rs 1,91,59,945 during the year under consideration. The specification and design shall be approved by the Chief Engineer, ID & R unit Jaipur. The quality assurance and supervision shall be carried out by IMTI Kota

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

65. Pursuant to the above approval, the assessee company has constructed the anicut at its own cost and has incurred an expenditure of Rs 1,91,59,945 during the year under consideration. The specification and design shall be approved by the Chief Engineer, ID & R unit Jaipur. The quality assurance and supervision shall be carried out by IMTI Kota

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

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

1) dated 21/03/2022 (correct date is 21/02/2022) (PB Page 96-105), wherein detail of transaction executed by assessee company through broker M/s SMC Global Securities Limited were provided. 8. Sir, one fails to understand that how detail of transaction which in fact executed by assessee can held as supporting evidence for allegation without any material based on which

SHRI KHATU SHYAM BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, that if 12 SHRI KHATU SHYAM BUILDERS VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR the assessee gives an explanation which is unproved but not disproved i.e. it is not accepted but circumstances do not lead to the reasonable and positive inference that the assessee’s case is false, then no penalty can be imposed

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)

1) of section 43 applicable, excess depreciation provided by Rs 1077958.00, only on the basis of suspicious without making any enquiry from the assessee. The nature of subsidy received by the assessee is in the form of VAT Exemption given by the Himachal Pradesh State Government to promote establishment of new unit/expansion of existing unit in the state of Himachal

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.

depreciation @25% on such leasehold rights in accordance with the provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Ergo we decide accordingly, and the additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 62. Ground No. 6 (Additional Ground no. 2) of the assessee’s appeal raised by the ld. A/R of the assessee is in relation

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.

depreciation @25% on such leasehold rights in accordance with the provision of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Ergo we decide accordingly, and the additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 62. Ground No. 6 (Additional Ground no. 2) of the assessee’s appeal raised by the ld. A/R of the assessee is in relation

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