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

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

253 ITR 454 (Guj.) wherein it was held that “Interpretation of documents - Documents must be read as a whole. It is a well settled canon of interpretation that a document has to be read as a whole" it is not permissible to accept a part and ignore the rest of the document.” Hissaria Brothers V/s ACIT

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

disallowance represent concealment of income and thus imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 2. From the above facts it is abundantly clear that the AO did not specify as to under which limb of sec. 271(1)(c) the assessee is required to explain his case. In the notice issued u/s 274 read with sec. 271(1)(c), penalty proceedings

RESERVE BANK COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

disallowed exemption claimed u/s 80P(2)(d) and 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.Also, he relies on the latest judgement of Apex Court in the case of “Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer”, [2023] 154 taxmann.com 305 (SC). 7.1 Further the Ld. DR argued that interest earned on FDR is income from investment

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

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

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

disallowance represent concealment\nof income and thus imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c).\n\n2. From the above facts it is abundantly clear that the AO did not specify as to under which\nlimb of sec. 271(1)(c) the assessee is required to explain his case. In the notice issued u/s\n274 read with sec. 271(1)(c), penalty

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

disallowance of Rs. 90,55,18,397/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Solid Waste Management System.\n78. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of Pozzolana Portland Cement (PPC) and Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). Apart from using gypsum and clinker as raw materials in the cement production, respondent also

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the said delay of 24 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication. 4. In ITA No. 41/JP/2021 for A.Y 2018-19, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the order passed

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the said delay of 24 days in filing the present appeal and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication. 4. In ITA No. 41/JP/2021 for A.Y 2018-19, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the order passed

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)

4. CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) . 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 40 Career Point Limited, Kota. Therefore, after considering

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

253, read with section 153C, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 - Appellate Tribunal - Appealable orders (Aggrieved person) - Assessment year 2008-09 - Whether rule 27 embodies a fundamental principal that a respondent who may not have been aggrieved by final order of lower authority or court, and therefore

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. VINOD KUMAR JHARCHUR HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application filed under rule 27

4 years has been in provisions of section 154. The law nowhere intended to give one single opportunity which is the present case. 1.7.2 Adequate time available before passing of the order: It is submitted that in this case the assessment order which has been rectified by the ld. AO was passed on dt.28-6-2016 and therefore, as per provisions

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)

253, parliament has power to make any law for whole or any part of India for implementing any treaty, agreement and convention with any other country or countries. 2.15 Attention is drawn towards the decision of Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemical Ltd. [2017] 55 ITR (TRIB) 1 [Hyd.], rendered by the Special Bench of Hon'ble ITAT. • In the said case

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)

253 ITR 633 (Rajasthan), wherein the assessee had raised a claim for weighted deduction under section 35B during the assessment proceedings before the AO. The Hon’ble Court upheld the decision of Tribunal and held that the Appellate Authority has the power to consider a larger amount if the materials supporting that claim are already available on record

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

253(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961 read with section 5 of Limitation Act in filing of appeal Hon'ble Sir(s), The humble assessee appellant applicant respectfully prays for the condonation of delay in the filling of Appeal for the following reason: 1. That the Id. PCIT (Central), Jaipur passed his order on 17.03.2021 which was served upon

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance of Rs. 1,42,170/- in respect of late deposition of employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF. The said ground is not pressed by the ld. AR of the assessee and therefore, the same is dismissed. Ground no. P raised for the charge of higher tax rate as per section 115BBE of the Act which is consequential