SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

disallowed The assessee also accepted Rs.\n75,00,000 as an advance in relation of transfer of capital asset. The assessee\nfailed to give a satisfactory reply and provide any required details. Hence, the\nA.O. completed the assessment and passed order u/s 147/1448 of the Income-\ntax Act dated 13.12.2019 Assessing total Income

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

disallowance. Submissions before Ld. PCIT 2. That Online portal does not permit filing of other documents including Form 58A with the return of income, therefore, the same was not submitted before the Ld. AO. 3. That as per Circular No. 09/2006 directs that at the time of filing the return of income, it cannot be accompanied by other documents. Findings

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

section\n40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the\nAct in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156).\n22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the\nevidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by\nassessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JPR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-6 JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, TILAK NAGAR JPR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

section 40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

MO. SHARIPH KURESHI,SIKAR vs. ITO WARD-4 SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance in respect of the items of club fees, gifts and presents, etc., then in view of the discussion as above, he would have been justified as per Expln. 3 to reduce the claim of deduction under ss. 80HH and 80-I as well. In view of the above discussions, the Tribunal was right in holding that

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

MANIRATNAM GEMS PVT. LTD.,BEAWAR vs. ACIT,C-2, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

section 92 or 92B with any specified associate concern nor had any transaction with specified person in domestic transactions, as such there was no requirement of any report being furnished in form 3CEB, u/s 92E of the Act. The provisions of Transfer Pricing were not applicable, and there was no requirement of any reference to TPO. The appellant also referred