SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

5. I have carefully considered the relevant facts and arguments advanced as also the case law cited. The undisputed fact culled out by the assessing officer which is also stated by the appellant is that as per the seized material being paid 71A of annexure A.S. Exhibit 1 is the amount received by the appellant and not paid

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

5. I have carefully considered the relevant facts and arguments advanced as also the case law cited. The undisputed fact culled out by the assessing officer which is also stated by the appellant is that as per the seized material being paid 71A of annexure A.S. Exhibit 1 is the amount received by the appellant and not paid

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Section 80IA (8) of the Act. In CIT vs. Thiagarajar Mills Ltd. in Tax Case(Appeal) Nos.68 to 70 of 2010 dated 07-06-2010, it was held that captive consumption of power generated by the assessee from its own power plant would enable the assessee to derive profit and gains by working out the cost of such consumption

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act. While making the addition ld. AO relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 32 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-VI Vs. T. S. Kishan & Co. Ltd., [2014] 50 taxmann.com 368 (Delhi). This decision deals with the share capital credit

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

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

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 5 of Limitation Act in filling of appeal SHRI UPENDRAF KUMAR SONI VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA Hon'ble Sir(s), The humble assessee appellant applicant respectfully prays for the condonation of delay in the filling of appeal for the following reason 1. That the Id. CIT (Appeals

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 5 of Limitation Act in filling of appeal SHRI UPENDRAF KUMAR SONI VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA Hon'ble Sir(s), The humble assessee appellant applicant respectfully prays for the condonation of delay in the filling of appeal for the following reason 1. That the Id. CIT (Appeals

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

Section 80IA (8) of the Act. In CIT vs. Thiagarajar Mills Ltd. in Tax Case(Appeal) Nos.68 to 70 of 2010 dated 07-06-2010, it was held that captive consumption of power generated by the assessee from its own power plant would enable the assessee to derive profit and gains by working out the cost of such consumption

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

5 of table below) which was held to be added to the income of the assessee: A.Y. 2015-16: Exhibit No. Amount of Remarks Undisclosed Sales Addition sustained by addition (Rs.) confirmed by ld. ld.CIT(A) by applying CIT(A) GP rate Exhibit A-10 2,68,920 Unaccounted Sales 2,68,920/- 26,031/- A.Y. 2016-17 Exhibit

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

5 of table below) which was held to be added to the income of the assessee: A.Y. 2015-16: Exhibit No. Amount of Remarks Undisclosed Sales Addition sustained by addition (Rs.) confirmed by ld. ld.CIT(A) by applying CIT(A) GP rate Exhibit A-10 2,68,920 Unaccounted Sales 2,68,920/- 26,031/- A.Y. 2016-17 Exhibit

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

5 of table below) which was held to be added to the income of the assessee: A.Y. 2015-16: Exhibit No. Amount of Remarks Undisclosed Sales Addition sustained by addition (Rs.) confirmed by ld. ld.CIT(A) by applying CIT(A) GP rate Exhibit A-10 2,68,920 Unaccounted Sales 2,68,920/- 26,031/- A.Y. 2016-17 Exhibit

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

5 of table below) which was held to be added to the income of the assessee: A.Y. 2015-16: Exhibit No. Amount of Remarks Undisclosed Sales Addition sustained by addition (Rs.) confirmed by ld. ld.CIT(A) by applying CIT(A) GP rate Exhibit A-10 2,68,920 Unaccounted Sales 2,68,920/- 26,031/- A.Y. 2016-17 Exhibit

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

5 of table below) which was held to be added to the income of the assessee: A.Y. 2015-16: Exhibit No. Amount of Remarks Undisclosed Sales Addition sustained by addition (Rs.) confirmed by ld. ld.CIT(A) by applying CIT(A) GP rate Exhibit A-10 2,68,920 Unaccounted Sales 2,68,920/- 26,031/- A.Y. 2016-17 Exhibit

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

5 of table below) which was held to be added to the income of the assessee: A.Y. 2015-16: Exhibit No. Amount of Remarks Undisclosed Sales Addition sustained by addition (Rs.) confirmed by ld. ld.CIT(A) by applying CIT(A) GP rate Exhibit A-10 2,68,920 Unaccounted Sales 2,68,920/- 26,031/- A.Y. 2016-17 Exhibit

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

section 68 of the Act and the said amount have been treated as income from the unexplained source, the applicant was entitled to take up a plea of addition of the aforesaid peak credit as the entire deposits have been treated to be income of the applicant. The contention is wholly misconceived. For adjudicating upon the plea of peak