KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

2. As per provision of section 80AC of the Act, if the assessee makes his claim\r\nfor deduction under section 80P in a return filed within time under sections 139(4),\r\n142(1) or section 148 of the Act, he will not be allowed the deduction, unless the\r\nreturn in question was filed within the due date

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

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)

2 point 4 line 3 wherein the Ld. AO confirmed this fact) which is before the expiry of one year from the relevant assessment year and therefore the return filed is a valid return as per the provisions of section 139(5), as the original return was filed under section 139(1) within the due date prescribed. In fact

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 the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Income Tax Act for Rs. 94,77,887/- because of late filing of return vide order dated 21.12.2021. The assessee filed appeal against the order before CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. The Learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of CPC vide order dated 11.05.2022. Therefore, the assessee filed appeal before your honour

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

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. 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

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

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

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

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)

2(115) of the Act. It is noted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee made a request to grant exemption u/s 11 of the entire surplus even if the same was not claimed in the return of income and 6 JAIPUR JEWELLERY SHOW VS ACIT ,CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR thus the same is not allowable as a fresh

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

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