INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

144C and initiate penalty proceedings, if any, and send a copy of the assessment order to the National Faceless Assessment Centre; (xxx) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall, upon receipt of the assessment order referred to in clause (xxvi) or clause (xxix), as the case may be, serve a copy of such order and notice for initiating penalty proceedings

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)

144C read with section 143(3) of the Act on 23.02.2018 by making various disallowances/additions to the returned income of the assessee as under :- - Reduction in claim u/s 80IA on power undertakings on account of transfer pricing adjustment of power (Rs. 2,89,07,63,321/-, - Reduction in claim u/s 80IA on Solid Waste Management System on account of transfer

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

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

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

144C as invalid and void ab initio which is liable to be quashed since not passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act. 3. 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

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

3) r.w.s. 144C as invalid and void ab initio which is liable to be quashed since not passed in accordance with the provisions of 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

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

3) r.w.s. 144C as invalid and void ab initio \nwhich is liable to be quashed since not passed in accordance with the \nprovisions of 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

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

disallowances required to be made only \nfor purposes of computing income under normal provisions of the Act. As per \nsettled legal principles and provisions of Section 115JB, only certain specified \nadjustments may be carried out for computing book profits, and hence the above \naction of Ld.AO is contrary to the provisions of the Act. \n\n7 Under the facts

INFOOBJECTS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1499/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Infoobjects Software India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd. Income Tax, 5-E Patrikayan, 3rd Floor Jhalana Circle-04, Jaipur Institutional Area, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCI8663B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by

3: In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. DRP has erred in not providing specific directions to the Id. TPO/AO, as required under Section 144C, and leaving it to the Id. AO to ascertain the disallowance

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

Section 263 of the Act. (b) issuing the notice u/s 263 by broadly looking at financial statements, ITR, Tax Audit report, Form 10CCB etc. without conducting any enquiry or verification of its own to hold that assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) is unsustainable in law. (c) not pointing out any discrepancy or incorrectness in the submission

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

disallowed due to\nreason that assessee has failed to submit any documentary evidence in support\nof his claim. Therefore, the whole consideration of Rs. 69,90,000/- is considered\nas Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee. Penalty proceedings\nu/s 270A of the Act is initiated on this issue for underreporting of income.\nFurther, the assessee

AJAY AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. CIT (IT), DELHI-1, CIT(IT) DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144C(3) of the Act on 21.06.2021. 4. On culmination of the assessment proceeding the ld. PCIT called for the assessment records in exercise of the powers vested upon and upon verification of the assessment record the ld. PCIT noted that the assessment in the case of assessee for the A.Y 2018-19 passed by the AO is erroneous

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

section 143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Act vide order dated 23.02.2018 after making disallowance of Rs. 553 Crs. under

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 2,05,361/- Total Benefit Rs. 25,07,454/- 4. The ld. CIT (A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the interest charged u/s 234D of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging of any such interest. The interest so charged, being contrary

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 2,05,361/- Total Benefit Rs. 25,07,454/- 4. The ld. CIT (A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the interest charged u/s 234D of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging of any such interest. The interest so charged, being contrary

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 2,05,361/- Total Benefit Rs. 25,07,454/- 4. The ld. CIT (A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the interest charged u/s 234D of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging of any such interest. The interest so charged, being contrary

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

144C(1) of the Act issued with reference to 263 order which was passed on 28.03.2024. 6. Further the legal counsel had advised to the authorized representative that order passed u/s 263 of the Act is contrary to provision of law and also to be challenged before the Hon’ble ITAT Bench as such facts had been communicated