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

disallowance of the deduction under Section 80P was not justified solely because the return was filed belatedly. Referring to various judicial precedents and circulars, it was noted that the provisions of Section 80AC, as amended from time to time, and the applicability of Section 143(1)(a)(v) did not support the denial of deduction in this case, especially considering

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

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144B of the Act, multiple statutory notices were issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1), and responses were received from the appellant along with supporting documentation such as ledger accounts, purchase invoices, transport bilty copies, stock registers, bank statements, and GST returns. The appellant strongly asserted that all purchases were genuine and duly recorded in the books of account

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

144B of the Income Tax Act.\n2. Assessee contests the order of the PCIT on the following\ngrounds;\n“1. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in\nissuing the notice under Section 263 IT. Act under the facts and\ncircumstances of the case. The notice issued under section 263 was\nwithout jurisdiction and without authority

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

144B and in accordance with scheme\nenacted by Central Government under section 151A – Whether after introduction\nof 'Faceless Jurisdiction of Income-tax Authorities Scheme, 2022' and 'e-\nAssessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022' it became\nmandatory for revenue to conduct/initiate proceedings pertaining to reassessment\nunder sections 147, 148 and 148A in a faceless manner Held, yes - Whether\nsince

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

Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act.\n2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s claim of allowing reliability charge of Rs. 1.5/unit in computing Transfer Price of Power for the purpose of Deduction u/s 80-IA in respect

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s claim of allowing reliability charge of Rs. 1.5/unit in computing Transfer Price of Power for the purpose of Deduction u/s 80-IA in respect

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act.Further, the Ld. CIT(A) had also obtained a remand report dated 16 August 2024 (PB 177-178) and therefore directing the JAO to verify the claim or documents filed by the Appellant is in violation of section 251 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) should have confirmed, reduced, enhanced or annulled the assessment order

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act.Further, the Ld. CIT(A) had also obtained a remand report dated 16 August 2024 (PB 177-178) and therefore directing the JAO to verify the claim or documents filed by the Appellant is in violation of section 251 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) should have confirmed, reduced, enhanced or annulled the assessment order

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

144B of the Income Tax Act (here in after “Act”), by the AO. Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT 2.1 In ITA No. 788/JPR/2023 the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 12,51,906/- imposed

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

144B of the Income Tax Act (here in after “Act”), by the AO. Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT 2.1 In ITA No. 788/JPR/2023 the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 12,51,906/- imposed

ACIT, NCR BUILDING, JAIPUR vs. HANS RAJ AGARWAL, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR JAIPUR

39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bereft of merits and law as already the assessment proceedings were initiated in present case of assessee and the issue of capital gain on sale of shares of M/s Yamini Investment Pvt. Ltd was specifically raised by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment however after considering the same the Ld. Assessing

SUPREME BUILDESTATES PVT LTD,MADANGANJ- KISHANGARH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2 AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the case was subsequently selected for Complete Scrutiny. While assessing the case under consideration, the AO has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80G to the tune of Rs. 17,16,540/- and issued order u/s 143(3) tune of r.w.s. 144B

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

Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act.\n2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. \nCIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s \nclaim of allowing reliability charge of Rs. 1.5/unit in computing Transfer \nPrice of Power for the purpose of Deduction u/s 80-IA in respect

BRIGHT SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no order as to\ncosts

disallowance of loss was also found to be unjustified.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "144B" ], "issues": "Whether the reopening of assessment

SOYALA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,TONK vs. ITO, TONK, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing the claim of the appellant u/s 80P (2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 5,62,832/- being interest received from Co-operative Bank on the alleged violation of the appellant in complying with the provisions of section 80A(5) of the Income tax Act, 1961 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, withdrawn