SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

65-66 8 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. SPPL Property Management (P.) Ltd [2023] 151 taxmann.com 103 (Calcutta HC) Original order in this case was passed u/s 143(3) - PCIT in order u/s 263 made disallowance for PF/ESI. Held: order of AO not prejudicial to the interest of revenue 67-68 9 Changanacherry Co- op. Agrl & Rural Development Bank

RAMESH CHAND BANSAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, AJMER

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

depreciation and the Assessing Officer did not honour the agreement. 3.1.2. After the coming of Sec. 271AAA applicability of Sec. 271(1)(c) has been completely ruled out by Sec. 271AAA(3). Moreover, the provisions of Sec. 271AAA starts with a non-obstante clause and overrides all other provisions of the Income Tax Act which essentially includes Sec. 271(1

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

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

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

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

depreciation or otherwise in respect of any asset, acquisition of which has been claimed as an application of income under this section in the same or any other previous year. (7) Where a trust or an institution has been granted registration under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 12AA or has obtained registration at any time under section

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

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

1) (iia) of Rs.3,53,65,893/- being additional depreciation and an addition of Rs.3,69,463/- due to transfer pricing adjustments. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same since the additional depreciation under Section

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

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

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

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