PRECIOUS JEWELS CORPORATION,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, C-SECHME, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 801B of the Act. Thus, the Courts have held that the assessees have to maintain proper records to show that the allocation of expenditure has been done appropriately between the units else the assessing officer can make proper allocation which may result in addition to the income declared. In the instant case, as seen from the assessment order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JAIPUR MIN DEV SYNDICATE LTD., JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 801B of the Act. Thus, the Courts have held that the assessees have to maintain proper records to show that the allocation of expenditure has been done appropriately between the units else the assessing officer can make proper allocation which may result in addition to the income declared. In the instant case, as seen from the assessment order

NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE JHUNJHUNU, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

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

801B was an issue res-judicata. The ratio of Liberty India was before the 10 NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS VS ACIT, CIRCLE- JUHNJHUNU assessee and the ratio of Meghalaya Steel (Supra) even if interpreted incorrectly was not available to the assessee. In this situation it is found that the assessee has made claim of deduction u/s 80IB which

SARAF EXPORTS,SARDARSHAHAR vs. ACIT, JHUNJHUNU

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

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

disallowances of INR 3,487/-, 20,996/- and 11,036/- out of refreshment expenses, Petrol & Diesel expenses and Telephone expenses respectively are deleted. 5. Grounds of Appeal No. 9, 10, 11 & 12: These grounds of appeal related to the claim of deduction u/s 80IB of the Act in respect of Duty Drawback of INR 18,52,184/-. The AO held

SAURABH AGROTECH (P) LTD ,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance of Rupees 1989115.00 within the meaning of section 801B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the ld Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-IV, Jaipur has erred in confirming the same by not deciding the issue on merit, though the all the material and submissions were before him. 4. That the Id. Assessing officer has erred

SOURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

801B and other addition u/s. 80IA and interest free advance. Against that order the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Alwar against the assessment order. The Id. CIT(A) partly allowed appeal of the assessee vide his order dated 06.01.2015 in Appeal No. 153/2013-14. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the disallowance u/s. 14A and partly

SAURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

801B and other addition u/s. 80IA and interest free advance. Against that order the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Alwar against the assessment order. The Id. CIT(A) partly allowed appeal of the assessee vide his order dated 06.01.2015 in Appeal No. 153/2013-14. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the disallowance u/s. 14A and partly