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)

801A, in terms of Sec. 80-1A(8) and 80A(6) r.w.s 92F of the Act, the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the power transferred was determined by considering the Average Annual Landed Cost (AALC) of power sold by the Grid during the year to the assessee and/or similarly placed nearby manufacturing units of independent assessee

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

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

RENU KHUNTETA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

801A) after considering the disallowance of Rs. 410898/- made u/s 143(3) whereas the adjusted total income as per Sec. 115JC (2) should be Rs. 1837984/-(Rs. 0 plus deduction claimed under chapter VI A u/s 80IA of Rs. 1837984) as per the return income. The disallowance/addition made in the order u/s 143(3) Rs. 383014/- will not be considered

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

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

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Depreciation Claim v. Sales Turnover Mismatch vi. Other Deduction claimed vii. Refund Claim viii. Payment to related persons mismatch ix. Deduction under Chapter VI-A x. Deduction for scientific research xi. Other income not credited to P & L a/c xii. Mismatch in Income/Capital Gain on sale of land or building xiii. Loans/advance to related persons Consequently, a notice

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

801A in respect to its Rail System. Considering the same, in my view no further disallowance is called for.\n11.15 Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, and relying on the precedents cited above, I am of the considered view that applying the split of 65.52% on the basis

AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, ALWAR

In the result, all the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation is\ngiven for half year. This is plainly incorrect.\n5.\nAggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the\nld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)\nis reiterated here in below:-\n\"7. 3. In this context, it is seen that the issue on which

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,SETU BHAWAN, JHALANA DOONGRI, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

801A(4). Hence out of total claim of deduction of Rs.6,19,06,508/-, disallowance of Rs.46,70,000/- shall be made and the claim of deduction u/s 80IA shall be worked out accordingly to be restricted to Gross Total Income. Submission:- 1. At the outset it is submitted that National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi issued the notice

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

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

801A in respect to its Rail System. Considering the same, in my \nview no further disallowance is called for.\n11.15 Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case \nand the material on record, and relying on the precedents cited above, I \nam of the considered view that applying the split of 65.52% on the \nbasis