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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

120,000,000 29-Jun-11 250,000,000 5-Jul-11 282,161.21 6 177,534.25 30-Jun-11 130,000,000 5 160,273.97 150,000,000 26-Aug-11 150,000,000 30-Aug-11 107,178.73 4 147,945.21 DSP Black 19-Apr-11 13 Rock

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

120,000,000 29-Jun-11 250,000,000 5-Jul-11 282,161.21 6 177,534.25 30-Jun-11 130,000,000 5 160,273.97 150,000,000 26-Aug-11 150,000,000 30-Aug-11 107,178.73 4 147,945.21 DSP Black 19-Apr-11 13 Rock

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

disallowance of Rs. 90,55,18,397/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Solid Waste Management System. 78. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of Pozzolana Portland Cement (PPC) and Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). Apart from using gypsum and clinker as raw materials in the cement production, respondent also

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

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)

disallowing the deduction is a matter of discussion and legal matter which cannot be rectified in order u/s 154. Thus it is debatable issue hence cannot be covered u/s 154 of I.T. Act, 1961. Section 154, scope of.-Section 154 confers jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer carry out rectification in respect of apparent mistakes which are self-evident from

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

120; (iii) an order under section 92CA by the Transfer Pricing Officer:] (b) "record" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this

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

MAYUR UNIQUOTERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NFAC, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with Section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed 14 ITANo.2&212/JPR/202 2 MayurUniquotersLtd. V, previously, AlomExtrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

120 OF 2019/11 OF 2022, MARCH 14, 2023) wherein it is held as under :-\r\n\"On a reading of section 80A(5) and section 80AC as they stood prior to 1-4-2018,\r\nit is found that when the latter provision was amended by Finance Act 2018, it\r\nwould reveal that the statutory scheme under

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

120/-. The Return of the assessee company was processed u/s 143(1), vide order dated 6.03.2019, wherein ld. AO (CPC) made various disallowances amounting to Rs. 96,13,158. Such disallowances made by the ld. AO(CPC) were mistake apparent on record. Resultantly, assessee company filed 3 VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR rectification

RAM NIWAS MODI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT-EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are disposed off\nthereby allowing the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowed to\ntheassessee out of his business expenditure. Now, the income of the assessee isnot\ncomputed as a business income. The Tribunal observed that the assessee was a\ncharitable institution and its income should be computed undersections 11, 12 and 13.\nClause (b) of section 40A(2) provides six categoriesof assessee, along with the list of\npersons who could

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JAIPUR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are disposed off with above directions

b) ………….. (c) ………….. (d) in respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society, the whole of such income.” 13. The aforesaid provisions have been examined at length by this Bench in case of ITO Vs. Shree Keshorai Patan Sahakari Sugar Mill (Supra

M/S. JAIPUR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee and the Revenue are disposed off with above directions

b) ………….. (c) ………….. (d) in respect of any income by way of interest or dividends derived by the co-operative society from its investments with any other co-operative society, the whole of such income.” 13. The aforesaid provisions have been examined at length by this Bench in case of ITO Vs. Shree Keshorai Patan Sahakari Sugar Mill (Supra

GCK STOCK PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 06/05/2025

120 – 138).\nHowever, the AO passed the assessment order u/s.147 r.w.s.144B and assessed\ntotal income of Rs.5,00,65,190/-thereby making disallowance / addition of Rs.\n49687796/-.\n3.4\nThereafter the assessee challenged the impugned order of the Assessing\nOfficer before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (NFAC) in which the\nassessee challenged the reopening as well as disallowance of losses

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowance of Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta vs. ITO Rs.5,26,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of the Act and the same be deleted. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that it is not disputed by the revenue that the case was reopened

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

disallowance of Rs. 13,07,007/- was deleted. b) The ld CIT(A) rejected the books of account by invoking section 145(3) of I.Tax Act by holding that assessee failed to furnish credible evidence in support of the source of cash deposited during the demonetization, hence the books of account of assessee are not reliable. (Page 38 of order

TAJ GRANITES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

4,38,530/- so made by the CPC towards the delayed deposit of the employees’s contribution towards ESI and PF though paid well before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act is hereby directed to be deleted as the same cannot be disallowed under section 43B read with section