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

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

801A &\ndisallowance u/s 14A. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act have been\ninitiated separately.\"\n\nFrom the above it is clear that AO has not recorded any satisfaction for initiation\nof penalty proceedings in respect of disallowance of CSR expenses. Therefore\npenalty imposed on disallowance of CSR expenses is uncalled for. Reliance in this\nconnection

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(4

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

FATEHPURIA TRANSFORMERS AND WITCHGEARS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

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

Section 801A(5), the requirement to treat the undertaking as the only business of the assessee is from the "initial assessment year" and not from the year of commencement of generation/distribution of power. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the addition made by Ld AO on account of deduction claimed u/s 801A

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

4)(iii) read with explanations 1 and 2 of 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

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.”

4,02,369/- is deleted and the Ground of Appeal is Allowed. 8. Ground has been raised against Ground No 2: This Ground has been raised against the action of the A.O in making an addition of Rs 32,684/- by disallowing the claim of this amount u/s 80IA of the Act. 8.1 I have perused the assessment order

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,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

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

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 is a mandatory requirement but filing of the same is a procedural requirement and therefore, even when such report is filed before the completion of assessment, the requirement of the section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

disallowance of interest of Rs. 4,10,898/- and the assessment was completed on 29.01.2016. On completion of the assessment the ld. AO noted that the case of the assessee was selected under CASS and assessment was completed determining total income of Rs. 3,83,014/- and tax was charged at Rs. 18,850/- under the normal provision

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

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

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

4) In this section\n(a) property includes property, rights and powers of every description and liabilities\"\nincludes duties of every description; and..\n18. Amalgamation, thus, is unlike the winding up of a corporate entity. In the case of\namalgamation, the outer shell of the corporate entity is undoubtedly destroyed; it ceases\nto exist. Yet, in every other sense

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

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

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.”

4 ITA No.610/JP/2017. Shri Ramesh Kshetrapal, Ajmer. I have gone through the decisions relied upon by the appellant carefully. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT, Delhi vs. Contimeters Electrical Pvt. Ltd. (317 ITR 249) Delhi, while deciding the issue of furnishing of audit report u/s 801A(7) during the course of assessment proceedings has observed as under

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

4) of the\nDTAA. Once the aforesaid explanation was proffered, the AO then proceeded to\nhold that the petitioner was not entitled to treaty benefits, a charge which was not\neven laid in the original SCN or which could be said to have constituted the basis\nfor the formation of opinion that reassessment was warranted. In fact the petitioner\nwas