PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

section 801A(3) of the Act. Against that observation assessee submitted that the plant and machinery of the sister concern was taken up by the domestic unit and not the SEZ unit of the assessee company. In support of this contention, copy of rent agreement, copy of board resolution, bank statement of the domestic unit. The assessee also contended that

RENU KHUNTETA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

801A also issued the notice u/s. 154 for disallowing the claim u/s. 80IA, hence, it was change of opinion and for the change of opinion no order can be made u/s 154; that it was not open to the ITO to go into the true scope of the relevant provisions of the Act in a proceeding under

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

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. OM METALS INFRA PROJECTS LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue in all the three years are dismissed

section 14A r.w. rule 8D of the I.T. Rules.” ITA No.301, 302 & 303/JP/2016 3 Grounds of revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 303/JP/2016. “(1.) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by way of disallowing deduction u/s 801A

VENKATESHWARA WIRES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act [ for short Act ]. 2 Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,95,25,000/- u/s 68 of the Income

AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, ALWAR

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

disallowed that claim, that view was upheld..........\n28. This court notices that there are not less than 100 instances. For instance. Section\n35A. 35AB (3), 35ABB, 35D (5): 35DDA; 358; 41 (1) (Any benefit accrued by the\namalgamated co.) from cessation of liability of amalgamating company shall be taxed in\nthe hands of the amalgamated company

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR-2, AJMER vs. SHRI RAMESH KSHETRAPAL, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

801A(7) during the course of assessment proceedings has observed as under: "The Tribunal took the view that the provisions of section 80-IA(7) with regard to filing of the audit report along with the return were not mandatory and were merely directory. In coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court

KISHAN GOPAL RUNGTA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: The Order Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 12.01.2020 Ignoring That Audit Report In Form No. 10Ccb Was Filed On 22.04.2019. 2. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend & Modify Any Ground Of Appeal. 3. Necessary Cost Be Awarded To The Assessee.”

disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s 801A. It is a settled law that obtaining the audit report to claim exemption deduction wherever required by a section

FATEHPURIA TRANSFORMERS AND SWITCHGEARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

801A of the act and the Computation of total income. The assessee vide his reply dated 04.02.2021 submitted the document like separate P&L accounts of the wind mills, form 10CCB etc along with computation of the total income. Ground 3 Ld. Pr.CIT has erred in law and on facts in holding delay in delivery charges amounting

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

801A in respect of captive power plant. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC,Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,18,12,93,748/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Solid Waste Management System 3. Whether

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

section 37(1), r.w.s. 40(a)(ii) of the Act and therefore, the amount of Rs.3,06,59,279/- claimed by the assessee as allowable deduction disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 3.3 During the scrutiny proceedings, the case was referred to the TPO for determination of Arm’s Length price with reference to all international

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

section 37(1), r.w.s. 40(a)(ii) of the Act and therefore, the amount of Rs.3,06,59,279/- claimed by the assessee as allowable deduction disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 3.3 During the scrutiny proceedings, the case was referred to the TPO for determination of Arm’s Length price with reference to all international

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)

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,SETU BHAWAN, JHALANA DOONGRI, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

801A(4). Hence out of the total claim of deduction of Rs. 6,19,06,508/- disallowance of Rs. 46,70,000/- shall be made and the claim of deduction u/s 80IA shall be worked out accordingly to be restricted to Gross Total Income. Hence the second ground raised in allowed 4 M/s Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation

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

801A in respect to its Rail System. Considering the same, in my \nview no further disallowance is called for.\n11.15 Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case \nand the material on record, and relying on the precedents cited above, I \nam of the considered view that applying the split of 65.52% on the \nbasis

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)

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] on 15.01.2021. 2 Shree Cement Limited vs. ACIT 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in not deleting the disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

disallow a sum credited in the books to accounts\nof assessee u/s 68 of the Act, Id.AO shall record satisfaction as to the source and\nnature of the sum credited in the books of accounts of assessee either no proper\nexplanation was provided by assessee or explanation provided was not\n\n31\nITA No. 360/JPR/2025 & CO No. 19/JPR/2025\nBharat Spun