URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

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

4,89,159/- for calculation of capital gain. Record reveals that against the said disallowance of cost of acquisition the assessee has not challenged that quantum addition made by the ld.AO and since that being the fact the ld. AO for the said disallowance initiated penalty proceeding as per the provision of section 270A of the Act and thereby ordered

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

disallowed said claim on ground that interest paid under section\n201(1A) would be penal in nature - Whether since tax was deducted by\nassessee on behalf of third party, interest charged on failure to remit\nsame within due date to government would be compensatory in nature\nand interest paid on delayed payment of TDS under section 201(1A)\nwas

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

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

249-274/Vol-2. Appeal filed by the revenue before Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur was dismissed. Copy of the order of Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur is at PB page 275-277/ Vol-2. (iii) AY 2017-18 The assessment of immediate preceding year AY 2017-18 was completed u/s 143(3) wherein no addition u/s 14A was made. The copy

SANJEEV AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

4) may prima facie suggest, the ground reality is that as the things stand now, this provision cannot be construed as 9 Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Jaipur. a limitation to the superiority of treaty over the domestic law. It can only be pressed into service as a provision beneficial to the assessee…” 2.17 Without prejudice to above, i.e. under the DTAA

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years. 28. Ground No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making addition

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years. 28. Ground No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making addition

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years. 28. Ground No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making addition

DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JPR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years. 28. Ground No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making addition

DCIT, CIRCLE-6 JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, TILAK NAGAR JPR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years. 28. Ground No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making addition

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years. 28. Ground No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making addition

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years. 28. Ground No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making addition

NIMBUS PIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

249 Fund Provident 2 9,416 52,770 15-06-2018 62,186 16-06-2018 Fund 5 Nimbus Pipes Limited Provident 225 15-11-2018 468 30-01-2019 3 243 Fund Provident 15-12-2018 1.710 30-01-2019 4 890 820 Fund Provident 93 86 15-12-2018 179 20-03-2019 5 Fund Provident

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT\n(A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y.\n2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years.\n28. Ground No. 3 (Α.Υ. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in\nlaw in upholding the order

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

disallowed.\n6. That, the Ld. PCIT failed to appreciate the fact that that the\namount of Rs. 13,92,83,709/- on which TDS was deducted is not entirely\nthe amount of payment of foreign interest. Because out of Rs.\n13,92,83,709/-, an amount of Rs 11,70,05,416 was paid as a Fees for\nTechnical Services

DALAS BIOTECH LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

4 crores from each of the party namely, Shri Rameshbhai Thakore and Shri Vinod Sharma which was also treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act by the AO on account of lack of proof of identity of party, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the parties. However while dealing with the issue of share application money

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income