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

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 of Rs. 1

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

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

1 relates to allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 90,55,18,397/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of captive power plant. 71. The facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cement and generation of power. The power undertakings

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

1 relates to allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 90,55,18,397/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of captive power plant.\n71. The facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of cement and generation of power. The power undertakings

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

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

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)

1) or 139(4) of the Act. Unless the return is filed within the prescribed time then deduction claimed u/s.80P of the Act cannot be allowed because provisions of Section 80A(5) of the Act which stipulates that no deduction shall be allowed if the assessee fails to make a claim in the return of income filed. The argument

PALAS GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,SIKAR vs. ITO, SIKAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

disallowance of the full amount without adjusting it against the GTI constitutes an\nincorrect application of Section 80P read with Section 80A(2) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961.\nGOA 1

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

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

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

Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of \nthe Act.\n6.1 In support of the ground so taken the ld. AR of the assessee \nsubmitted that the said ground being technical in nature is not \nbeing pressed in the interest of substantive justice. Hence, the said \nground is not being adjudicated. Ground No. 1 of appeal is \ntherefore dismissed.\n7. Ground

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

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)

1 & 3 are interconnected and relates to not allowing fresh claim made by the assessee for the first time before the assessee before the Revenue Authorities. The Bench feels to decide both the grounds through a common order. Brier facts of the case are that the assessee is a non-profit organization which is engaged in the promotion