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

section 145(3). 28.7. Assessee has also provided details of 2 comparable companies where their profit had also shown a reduction in AY 2012-13. CRISIL data also revealed that the entire industry was suffering. Assessee's entries in the books are based on invoice. Agents and dealers billed same rate to assessee. Further, the downward fall in gross profit

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

4) of Section 80- IB as well. It would mean that total deduction under Section 80-IB as well as 80-IC is for a period of 10 years. (Emphasis Supplied) 6.6 In view of the above, it is clear that once the initial assessment year is identified he appellant is to get the deduction under section 801C

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JAIPUR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD., JAIPUR

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

255/- u/s 80P(2)(d) as against Rs 6,21,99,978/- claimed by the assessee. Against the said findings of the ld CIT(A), both the parties are in appeal before us. 4. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that similar disallowance was made by AO in AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 which was deleted

M/S. JAIPUR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

255/- u/s 80P(2)(d) as against Rs 6,21,99,978/- claimed by the assessee. Against the said findings of the ld CIT(A), both the parties are in appeal before us. 4. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that similar disallowance was made by AO in AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 which was deleted

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

4) or in the notices 148, the returns were\r\nindeed non-est Assessing Officer even though they assessment.\r\nThere is yet another aspect of the matter. The requirement of making the claim for\r\ndeduction in a return of income filed by the assessee can be seen as a statutory\r\nprecondition for claiming the benefit of deduction

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

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

SHRI KESHORAIPATAN SAHKARI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED,KOTA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. In view of above discussion, it is clear that the A.O. has not examined the issue of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961 properly and completed the assessment in this case without conducting proper enquiry on the issue of the said deduction.” Show Cause Notice u/s 263 was issued

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

4,93,41,587/- a ils and explanations sought by ld.AO were furnished and assessments were completed by ld. AO after various disallowances/additions in all the assessment years. Aggrieved of the orders so passed by the ld. AO, appeals were preferred before ld. CIT(A), wherein part relief was allowed. Present appeals have been filed against orders so passed

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

4,93,41,587/- a ils and explanations sought by ld.AO were furnished and assessments were completed by ld. AO after various disallowances/additions in all the assessment years. Aggrieved of the orders so passed by the ld. AO, appeals were preferred before ld. CIT(A), wherein part relief was allowed. Present appeals have been filed against orders so passed

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

4,93,41,587/- a ils and explanations sought by ld.AO were furnished and assessments were completed by ld. AO after various disallowances/additions in all the assessment years. Aggrieved of the orders so passed by the ld. AO, appeals were preferred before ld. CIT(A), wherein part relief was allowed. Present appeals have been filed against orders so passed

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

disallowing the advertisement expenditure claimed by the assessee - There is nothing on record to suggest that the order of AO is not sustainable in law – the order of the CIT is set aside – Decided in favour of assessee. 22 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT 29. Further it is settled law that initiation of 263 proceedings should

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

255 (Delhi) (Mag.)/[2011] 335 ITR 259 (Delhi)/[2011] 244 CTR 51 (Delhi)[08-04-2011]\nSome of the arguments made on behalf of the assesse as noted in the judgement are as under:-\n\"It was also argued that the legislative intent in connection with section 271 of the Act is further fortified from the various Explanations provided

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

255 (Delhi) (Mag.)/[2011] 335 ITR 259 (Delhi)/[2011] 244 CTR 51 (Delhi)[08-04-20111 Some of the arguments made on behalf of the assesse as noted in the judgement are as under:- "It was also argued that the legislative intent in connection with section 271 of the Act is further fortified from the various Explanations provided

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

255 (Delhi) (Mag.)/[2011] 335 ITR 259\n(Delhi)/[2011] 244 CTR 51 (Delhi)[08-04-20111\nSome of the arguments made on behalf of the assesse as noted in the judgement\nare as under:-\n\"It was also argued that the legislative intent in connection with section 271 of the\nAct is further fortified from the various Explanations provided