CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

disallowed if salary payment was greater than 20,000/- in cash. This shows that it is\na pre meditated action on the part of the assessee trust with the motive of siphoning off\nfunds for personal benefit of the trust secretary.\n8.8 It may further be noted that no other evidence such as ID of employees. PAN,\nAddress or employment

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ii) and Section 13(1)(d) for\nsuch reason assessment was reopened under Section 147—Assessing Officer\nobserved that from impugned documents it was seen that assessee had\ndeposited sums with N and both these companies are specified persons of\nassessee—Therefore, Assessing Officer held that these amounts are to be taxed\nseparately at Maximum Marginal Rate in terms

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ii) and Section 13(1)(d) for\nsuch reason assessment was reopened under Section 147—Assessing Officer\nobserved that from impugned documents it was seen that assessee had\ndeposited sums with N and both these companies are specified persons of\nassessee—Therefore, Assessing Officer held that these amounts are to be taxed\nseparately at Maximum Marginal Rate in terms

DILIP SINGH YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

disallowance of exemption claimed under section 10(10AA) which was in excess Rs 300000.00. Same was replied by assessee in response column to notice as well as by e mail. The copy of said notice is enclosed as Page No’s 2-4 of paper book and the replies thereto are enclosed as page No’s 5-12 of paper

DASHRATH KUMAR SEN,AJMER vs. ACIT, NEFAC -1(2)(2),DELH, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

4)The Ld. CIT(A) has disallowed the claim of assessee for only reason that he is not a Government Employee so his case does not fall in the category of section 10(10AA)(i) but falls in the category of section 10(10AA)(ii

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ii) or Section 37 [“Issue No. 2”].\n2.1. Assessee company, during the year under consideration, incurred expenses of\nRs. 55,810, on account of interest on delayed payment of TDS. The same was\nclaimed as expense by assessee company and allowed, as such, by the\nNFAC, during the course of assessment proceedings.\n2.2. Ld. PCIT assumed jurisdiction under Section

SONU AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed treating the same as assessee’s own unaccounted income in the guise of bogus LTCG. The AO accordingly assessed the total income Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur. of the assessee at Rs. 91,02,068/- under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act, 1961 by making addition of Rs. 81,84,838/- under section 69A read with

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ii) Deleting addition of Rs. 20,10,438/- made on account of depreciation disallowance on catalyst. iii) Curtailing disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds to Rs. 22,45,000/- as against that of Rs. 55,92,19,845/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down

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

ii) Deleting addition of Rs. 20,10,438/- made on account of depreciation disallowance on catalyst. iii) Curtailing disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds to Rs. 22,45,000/- as against that of Rs. 55,92,19,845/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ii) Deleting addition of Rs. 20,10,438/- made on account of depreciation disallowance on catalyst. iii) Curtailing disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds to Rs. 22,45,000/- as against that of Rs. 55,92,19,845/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down

THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

4) of the Act. It is essential to clarify here that while\nreturns filed in accordance with the various sections of the Act\nare deemed valid returns, the key requirement for granting the\ndeduction under Part C of Chapter VIA of the Act is defined in\nthis chapter itself. As per section 80AC (ii) of the Act. the\nretum must

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

4 of the appeal of assessee is allowed. 56. Ground No. 5 (Additional Ground No.1 ) relates to necessary direction may be given to the AO to allow the claim of depreciation on expenditure incurred in respect to acquisition of leasehold rights on land u/s 32(1)(ii) being business or commercial right of similar nature. The appellant has submitted 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)

4) of Section 80- IB as well. It would mean that total deduction under Section 80-IB as well as 80-IC is for a period of 10 years. (Emphasis Supplied) 6.6 In view of the above, it is clear that once the initial assessment year is identified he appellant is to get the deduction under section 801C

DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JOY SYNDICATE & ENCLAVE PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

disallowed the claim u/s 80IB for the following two reasons: a) The Project claimed to have been completed has not yet been completed, as the construction expenses continue to appear in the audited financial statements [AO page 2 para (ii)(a)]. b) The assessee company violated the provisions of section 80IB (10) (e) & (f) [AO page 3 para (ii

INCOME TAX OFFICEER, WARD-2(2), KOTA, RAWATBHATA ROAD vs. HITKARI VIDYALAYA SHAKARI SHIKSHA SAMITI LIMITED, BHATAPARA, KOTA

10 of 1949).\nFurther it is also seen that Co- operative banks, in which assessee Society has\ninvested its funds are not claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act.\nIn the light of provisions of section 80P and above facts of the case, I am in the\nview that assessee Society is not entitled to claim deduction under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), KOTA , RAWATBHATA ROAD vs. HITKARI VIDYALAYA SHAKARI SHIKSHA SAMITI LIMITED, BHATAPARA, KOTA

10 of 1949).\nFurther it is also seen that Co- operative banks, in which assessee Society has\ninvested its funds are not claiming deduction under section 80P of the Act.\nIn the light of provisions of section 80P and above facts of the case, I am in the\nview that assessee Society is not entitled to claim deduction under section

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

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