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

6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. suppression of sales. Similarly the no evidence has been adduced to establish that any expenditure incurred by the assessee is not genuine or is overstated. Therefore, the only reason which can be used to sustain the addition is a fall in the gross profit rate, which is a circumstance as is explained below

M/S MOJIKA REAL ESTATE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

220 (Mad.); (iv) The material or information found in the course of survey proceeding could not be a basis for making any addition in the block assessment, vide decision of this court in T. C (A) No. 2620 of 2006 (between CIT v. S. Ajit Kumar [2008] 300 ITR 152 (Mad.); (v) Finally, the word "may" used in section 133A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR vs. M/S MOJIKA REAL ESTATE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

220 (Mad.); (iv) The material or information found in the course of survey proceeding could not be a basis for making any addition in the block assessment, vide decision of this court in T. C (A) No. 2620 of 2006 (between CIT v. S. Ajit Kumar [2008] 300 ITR 152 (Mad.); (v) Finally, the word "may" used in section 133A

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

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Section 40A where under a disallowance is not permissible if on consideration of business expediency an assessee is able to satisfy the AO that he was required to make payment in cash due to exceptional or unavoidable circumstances, or because payment by a crossed cheque or bank draft was not practicable, and/or would have caused genuine difficulty to the payee

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

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

disallowance of capital expenditure u/s 37 should have been factored in by the AO while estimating the net profit @ 12.5% and replacing the net profit u/s 29 determined by the assessee and hence, separate addition on this account is not warranted. Hence, the said findings of the ld CIT(A) is set-aside and the ground no. 4 of assessee

A DAGA ROYAL ARTS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

6,84,296/- were paid in cash towards stamp duty and Court fee respectively. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, a show-cause notice was issued to the assessee as to why the purchases made in cash should not be disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. In its submission filed vide letter dated 24.02.2016, the assessee submitted that

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

220/- after claiming deduction u/s 10AA at Rs. 7,21,35,825/-. The reassessment order u/s 143(3) read with 147 was passed by the Assessing Officer on 13.12.2017 wherein the assessee was found eligible for deduction u/s 10AA to the extent of Rs. 7,21,35,825/- as originally 3 M/s Amrapali Exports, Jaipur Vs. DCIT, Jaipur assessed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

6) were also issued to M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd on 09.07.2013 & 05.10.2018 whose account was report as suspicious but the same were returned unserved by the postal authorities with remarks ‘ not known’ / ‘moved’. Thereafter, KYC of M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd was called for from the UCO Bank and it is noticed that the address given

SH. PRABHAT SINGH,SHREE CEMENT LTD., ANDHERI DEORI, BEAWAR, AJMER vs. CPC, BENGALURU , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

6,61,220/- Sh. Prabhat Singh vs. CPC which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated 10.12.2019 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 10,41,202/- towards employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made U/s 143(1) on account of assessee

M/S APM INDUSTRIES LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of above directions

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Sustained The Said Disallowance.

220/- is in the redeemable preference shares of V.S. Lignite Power Pvt. Ltd. It is also not in dispute that the assessee is purchasing the power from the said company at a lower rate tariff in comparison to the JVVNL. However, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maxopp Investment

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

section even though said issue did not find mention in the reasons\r\nrecorded and the notice issued under s.148. Since there was confusion\r\nprevailing with regard to the powers of the AO to assess or reassess on the\r\nissues for which no reasons were recorded, Expln. 3 came to be inserted as\r\nclarificatory. Now, after

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

220 Teja Constructions Vs. Asstt. CIT (Hyd. ‘A’) Disallowance under s. 40(a)(ia) – Rejection of books vis-à-vis amount paid without TDS – Once estimation of income is made, further disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS is not warranted – That apart, if the assessee has paid the impugned amount and the amount

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

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

220 Teja Constructions Vs. Asstt. CIT (Hyd. ‘A’) Disallowance under s. 40(a)(ia) – Rejection of books vis-à-vis amount paid without TDS – Once estimation of income is made, further disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS is not warranted – That apart, if the assessee has paid the impugned amount and the amount

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)

6) of the Act to M/s Sidhi Vinayak Metal & Salt Company Pvt. Ltd. received no response, and there is no evidence of that company filing its income tax return for the relevant assessment year. These facts severely impair the credibility of the transactions. The Assessing Officer has correctly invoked the provisions of section 69C of the Act. Section 69C provides

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

220/- which was processed U/s 143(1) of the IT Act and in terms of intimation issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 1,21,09,240/- towards employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made U/s 143(1) on account of assessee’s failure

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

220/- which was processed U/s 143(1) of the IT Act and in terms of intimation issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 1,21,09,240/- towards employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made U/s 143(1) on account of assessee’s failure