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

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, 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

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

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

SARAF EXPORT,CHURU vs. ACIT, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

disallowances of claim of the assessee are against the law. You are requested to kindly accept the appeal of the assessee. As regards ground No. 6, it is stated the same is in respect of the prescribed proforma . I have already submitted my submission in earlier para while submitting illegality in respect of the Section

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

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORTATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue

disallowance of Rs. 17,56,304 u/s 14A by application of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the IT Rules. He has further erred in applying Rule 8D(2)(iii) by holding that the word ‘investment’ used in this Rule would include shares/securities held as stock in tread. 4. The assessee craves right to add, alter or amend

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue

disallowance of Rs. 17,56,304 u/s 14A by application of Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the IT Rules. He has further erred in applying Rule 8D(2)(iii) by holding that the word ‘investment’ used in this Rule would include shares/securities held as stock in tread. 4. The assessee craves right to add, alter or amend

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 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

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

section 80IA vide clause (iii) to the Explanation below Sec. 80A(6) & Sec. 80IA(8)) were not urged. Hence considering these ITA Nos. 489 to 492/JP/2023 ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. 17 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

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

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

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