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

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

section 80IA vide clause (iii) to the Explanation below Sec. 80A(6) & Sec. 80IA(8)) were not urged. Hence considering these\nadditional submissions and following arms’ length principles, it is humbly prayed that Reliability Charge, at-least @ Rs. 1.50 per unit or mark up of 15% for each of the two distinct benefits be kindly allowed

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

section 80IA vide clause (iii) to the Explanation below Sec. 80A(6) & Sec. 80IA(8)) were not urged. Hence considering these additional submissions and following arms’ length principles, it is humbly prayed that Reliability Charge, at-least @ Rs. 1.50 per unit or mark up of 15% for each of the two distinct benefits be kindly allowed

SHIKSHA VIBHAG KARMCHARI SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,BUNDI vs. ITO, BUNDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed deduction claimed u/s 80P of the Act primarily because of late filing of return u/s 139(4) of the Income Tax Act. The objection of the CPC is with regard to claim of deduction in the light of provisions of Section 80A

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

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

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

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallow deduction u/s 80P amounting to ₹14,38,852/-(i.e.\nSurplus declared during the year).\n5.2 These striking discrepancies between the amounts cited in the reasons recorded and\nthe actual figures reflected in the assessee's bank statements clearly demonstrate that the\nso-called \"reason to believe” was founded on unverified, incorrect, and incomplete\ninformation. There was no tangible material

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallow deduction u/s 80P amounting to ₹14,38,852/-(i.e.\nSurplus declared during the year).\n\n5.2 These striking discrepancies between the amounts cited in the reasons recorded and\nthe actual figures reflected in the assessee's bank statements clearly demonstrate that the\nso-called \"reason to believe” was founded on unverified, incorrect, and incomplete\ninformation. There was no tangible

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallow deduction u/s 80P amounting to ₹14,38,852/-(i.e.\nSurplus declared during the year).\n5.2 These striking discrepancies between the amounts cited in the reasons recorded and\nthe actual figures reflected in the assessee's bank statements clearly demonstrate that the\nso-called \"reason to believe” was founded on unverified, incorrect, and incomplete\ninformation. There was no tangible material

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallow deduction u/s 80P amounting to ₹14,38,852/-(i.e.\nSurplus declared during the year).\n5.2 These striking discrepancies between the amounts cited in the reasons recorded and\nthe actual figures reflected in the assessee's bank statements clearly demonstrate that the\nso-called \"reason to believe” was founded on unverified, incorrect, and incomplete\ninformation. There was no tangible material

SOYALA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,TONK vs. ITO, TONK, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing the claim of the appellant u/s 80P (2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 1,14,509/- on the alleged violation of the appellant in complying with the provisions of section 80A

BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE -4-JAIPUR, RJN-C-(104)(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed the aforesaid deduction by holding that since the assessee had not made any claim in its original return filed under section 139(1). 2.5 Your honour the proper interpretation of the provisions of section 80A

JAIPUR JEWELLERY SHOW,JAIPUR vs. ACIT-DCIT CIRCLE (EXEMP.), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return. Appeal to the Supreme Court, as the decision was upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court, was dismissed making clear that the decision was limited to the power of assessing authority to entertain claim for deduction

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

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

disallowance of claimed of Rs. 3,06,59,279/- made by \nAO is confirmed. The ground of appeal is dismissed.”\n4.6 Ground no. 19 before the ld. CIT(A) was that deduction on \nvarious infrastructure facilities and power undertakings amounting \nto Rs. 7,13,42,76,504/- under regular provision is also available \nwhile computing book profit u/s. 115JB which