ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JAIPUR MIN DEV SYNDICATE LTD., JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

801B of the Act. Thus, the Courts have held that the assessees have to maintain proper records to show that the allocation of expenditure has been done appropriately between the units else the assessing officer can make proper allocation which may result in addition to the income declared. In the instant case, as seen from the assessment order, the appellant

PRECIOUS JEWELS CORPORATION,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, C-SECHME, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

801B of the Act. Thus, the Courts have held that the assessees have to maintain proper records to show that the allocation of expenditure has been done appropriately between the units else the assessing officer can make proper allocation which may result in addition to the income declared. In the instant case, as seen from the assessment order, the appellant

SARAF EXPORTS,SARDARSHAHAR vs. ACIT, JHUNJHUNU

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

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

section 80-I/80- IA/80-IB of the 1961 Act." 5.2 It is also noted that subsequent decisions of various High Court including those from the jurisdictional High Court of Rajasthan have taken the same view as above. In the case of CIT vs. Garment Crafts [2016] 68 taxmann.com 222 (Rajasthan) the High Court has reiterated that the duty drawback

BRIJ BIHARI AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 , JAIPUR

68 ELT 548, 551 (All). The Hon'ble Rajasthan\nHigh Court in the case of Rameshwar lal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536\n(Raj.) has held that \"there is no provision for permitting the cross\nexamination of the persons whose statements were recorded during\nsurvey.\"\nFurther, in the present case the evidence seized documents in the pen\ndrive. Hence

SOURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 153A of the Act was issued and served upon the Assessee on 06/09/2016 requiring him to file a true and correct return of income as prescribed under Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 within 15 days of the service of the said notice. The assessee filed its return u/s 139 on 30/09/2010 declaring income

SAURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 153A of the Act was issued and served upon the Assessee on 06/09/2016 requiring him to file a true and correct return of income as prescribed under Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 within 15 days of the service of the said notice. The assessee filed its return u/s 139 on 30/09/2010 declaring income

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

68 SOT 0199 (Hyd) (Trib) Rajasthan State Industries Development & Investment Corp. Ltd. • CIT & ANR vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd.(2014) 360 ITR 0714 (Kar) • CIT Vs. Madras Refineries Ltd., (2004) 266 ITR 170 (Madras) • CIT &Anr.Vs. Karnataka Financial Corporation (2010) 326 ITR 355 (Kar) 3.9 It was further submitted that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case