PANNA LAL KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in ITA

section 68 is not applicable. 14. In the light of the above factual analysis placed before us and based on arguments Table A, B & C summarizing the various arguments. We have made summary of the arguments raised before us. Particulars Amount Rs. The figure of addition as per findings of Ld. CIT(A) [ figure 88,78,442 should have

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

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139(1) or 139(4) or under section 142(1) or section 148 can also be accepted and acted upon for entertaining claim raised under section 80P provided further proceedings in relation to such assessments

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the Act. Brief facts pertaining to this ground of appeal are that the appellant had deposited cash amounting to Rs.1,16,00,000/- in its bank account No. 660520110000367 with Bank of India during the demonetization period in SBN of Rs.1000/- and 500/- rupee notes. The immediate source of such cash was explained as the cash

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the Act. Brief facts pertaining to this ground of appeal are that the appellant had deposited cash amounting to Rs.1,16,00,000/- in its bank account No. 660520110000367 with Bank of India during the demonetization period in SBN of Rs.1000/- and 500/- rupee notes. The immediate source of such cash was explained as the cash

REKHA SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. PR.CIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263 High court by impugned order held that since Assessing Officer has made inquiries in details and accepted genuineness of loans received by assessee, such view of Assessing Officer was a plausible view and same cannot to be considered erroneous or prejudicial to interest of revenue Whether SLP against said impugned order was to be dismissed-Held

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

10B can only be an\napproval granted by the Board constituted by the Central Government under the provisions of\nIndustries (Development and Regulation) Act. This judgment of the Delhi High Court is the\nreason cited in respect of all the re-assessments. However, neither in the notices or the\nassessment orders, nor in the counter affidavit is it stated that

SMT RAMA BAJAJ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said addition, made by ld. AO and sustained by ld. CIT(A). ” 2. Regarding Ground No. 1, the ld. submitted that the assessee has incurred interest expenses

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

UNIT IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BHARATPUR,BHARATPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

10B, delay in uploading Form 10 cannot lead to disallowances. Urban Improvement Trust Pvt. Ltd. 5. The learned AO has erred in law as well as in facts in not providing proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant before passing the order. 6. That the appellant craves to add, alter OR amend all OR any of the grounds

UNIT IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BHARATPUR,BHARATPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

10B, delay in uploading Form 10 cannot lead to disallowances. Urban Improvement Trust Pvt. Ltd. 5. The learned AO has erred in law as well as in facts in not providing proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant before passing the order. 6. That the appellant craves to add, alter OR amend all OR any of the grounds

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

10B such price is to be adjusted for difference. No appropriate adjustment was made by lower authorities for basic difference i.e. the assessee company was not in existence at the time of approval of tender, It was merely conduit company, it has no experience, no infrastructure, and no funds to execute the work and even the parent company

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

10B such price is to be adjusted for difference. No appropriate adjustment was made by lower authorities for basic difference i.e. the assessee company was not in existence at the time of approval of tender, It was merely conduit company, it has no experience, no infrastructure, and no funds to execute the work and even the parent company

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

10B alongwith ROI was not filed before specified date which is mandatory requirement for claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Hence assessee UITs income cannot be treated as exempt u/s 11 of the IT Act by any means. 5.1.2 Out of the submission of the appellant (reproduced entirely in para 4 supra), the following points being relevant for adjudication

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

10B alongwith ROI was not filed before specified date which is mandatory requirement for claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act. Hence assessee UITs income cannot be treated as exempt u/s 11 of the IT Act by any means. 5.1.2 Out of the submission of the appellant (reproduced entirely in para 4 supra), the following points being relevant for adjudication

SHRI BHANWAR LAL KHICHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

10B which is applicable to an assessee availing benefit under Section 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act. During assessment, the Assessing Officer required the Appellant University to ask the auditor to refile the audit report in the correct Form 10BB and the auditor filed the correct audit report in Form 10BB as per Section

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

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