M/S TRIVENI QUALITY MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

171 Taxman 156 (Delhi) and submitted that once the assessee has disclosed all the relevant facts and details relating to the issue and books of accounts were accepted by the AO which were duly audited, then the disallowance made under section

AGRASEN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

Section 14A is not justified.” The SLP filed against the said judgment has been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Ahmedabad V. Sintex Industries Ltd (2018) 93 taxmann.com 24 (SC). (vii) Emtici Engineering Ltd. Versus ACIT (OSD). Anand Circle, Anand 2016 (3) TMI 186 - ITAT Ahmedabad. “It was noted from records

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

171/- was disallowed in terms of section 40(a)(ia) on which provisions of section 194A, 194J and 194C were

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

section 14A, made disallowance of Rs.Rs.2,87,229/-. The appellant has stated that the disallowance u/s 14A is attracted only when exempt income is earned. During the year the assessee has not earned any exempt income from these land or residential house and therefore no disallowance can be made u/s 14A. Reliance is placed on various cases including Supreme

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

171 taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT the notice has to be appropriately marked. Similar

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

171 taxman 156, has held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, when the Assessing officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT the notice has to be appropriately marked. Similar

M/S P. R. ROLLING MILLS P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

171 (Exemption) on 27,10.2004. Registration u/s HOG was initially granted on 27.10.2004 was therefore also available to it since 12,10.2011 till withdrawn. Similarly, registration under section 10(230) had been granted on 27.2.2004, which had been renewed on 16.1.2014, A gazette notification No.4/2010 dated 28.1.2010 had also been issued by the CBDT in the Ministry of Finance under

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIGYAN LODHA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

171] Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the addition was based on third party information gathered by Investigation wing then addition cannot be made unless such information is provided to the assessee and opportunity of cross examination is provided moreso when assessee placed on record all the evidences. The relevant findings are as under: Headnote: Section

MURLI DHAR UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, stands allowed

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

Section 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. 11. Further we observed from the assessment order that the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for examination of cash deposited during

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

disallowance of Rs.1,38,95,995/- u/s\n40(a)(ia) of the Act (and the total reassessed income of Rs.\n5,97,80,77,790/-). However, this was followed by a notice u/s 263 with\nreference to the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. 147 of the\nAct dated 26.03.2015 on the ground that a further amount of sales

M/S SHIV KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR TEA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance has been made and upheld in appeal, does not justify the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In Laxmi Jewellery vs. CIT (1988) 171

SMT. SUMAN CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

171 taxmann.com 500 (Raipur - Trib.)/[2025] 211 ITD 580 (Raipur - Trib.)[29-01-2025] Where case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for examination of specific issue, Assessing Officer could not have ventured into a different issue (difference in purchase consideration of property) that did not form basis for taking up case for such scrutiny assessment without getting said

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

SHIVALIK KINEMA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 68 of the Act. In the result, ground no.2 taken by the assessee company is allowed. 25. In Ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged the sustenance of disallowance of Rs. 31,171

LATE SH. BHEEM SEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

171/-. (4) Mobile Charges Rs. 18,482/- : 13.8. We have heard the ld. A/R as well as the ld. D/R and considered the relevant record. The assessee has claimed Mobile charges of Rs. 18,482/-. The AO disallowed Rs. 5,000/- as an adhoc disallowance for want of supporting vouchers and evidence. We find that the adhoc disallowance made

LATE SH. BHIM SEN BATRA L/H SH. HIMANSHU BATRA,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

171/-. (4) Mobile Charges Rs. 18,482/- : 13.8. We have heard the ld. A/R as well as the ld. D/R and considered the relevant record. The assessee has claimed Mobile charges of Rs. 18,482/-. The AO disallowed Rs. 5,000/- as an adhoc disallowance for want of supporting vouchers and evidence. We find that the adhoc disallowance made

LATE SH. BHEEM SEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

171/-. (4) Mobile Charges Rs. 18,482/- : 13.8. We have heard the ld. A/R as well as the ld. D/R and considered the relevant record. The assessee has claimed Mobile charges of Rs. 18,482/-. The AO disallowed Rs. 5,000/- as an adhoc disallowance for want of supporting vouchers and evidence. We find that the adhoc disallowance made