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

LAL CHAND MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7-3, JAIPUR

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

166 ITR 207 which pertains to AY 1976-77, where the High Court held that no transfer is involved in the conversion of individual property into the partnership property ITA No. 515/JP/15 Lalchand Meena, vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Jaipur but this case has no application after the insertion of clause (vi) to section 2(47) and section

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

price as on 18.06.2015 Rs. 27,89,92,000/- Less:- Cost of acquisition 903892*1081/223= Rs. 43,81,647/- Rs. 87,96,055/- 430619*1081/244= Rs. 19,07,783/- 221058*1081/259= Rs. 9,22,640/- 570000*1081/389= Rs. 15,83,985/- Long term capital gain Rs. 27,01,95,945/- From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

price as on 18.06.2015 Rs. 27,89,92,000/- Less:- Cost of acquisition 903892*1081/223= Rs. 43,81,647/- Rs. 87,96,055/- 430619*1081/244= Rs. 19,07,783/- 221058*1081/259= Rs. 9,22,640/- 570000*1081/389= Rs. 15,83,985/- Long term capital gain Rs. 27,01,95,945/- From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

price as on 18.06.2015 Rs. 27,89,92,000/- Less:- Cost of acquisition 903892*1081/223= Rs. 43,81,647/- Rs. 87,96,055/- 430619*1081/244= Rs. 19,07,783/- 221058*1081/259= Rs. 9,22,640/- 570000*1081/389= Rs. 15,83,985/- Long term capital gain Rs. 27,01,95,945/- From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

price as on 18.06.2015 Rs. 27,89,92,000/- Less:- Cost of acquisition 903892*1081/223= Rs. 43,81,647/- Rs. 87,96,055/- 430619*1081/244= Rs. 19,07,783/- 221058*1081/259= Rs. 9,22,640/- 570000*1081/389= Rs. 15,83,985/- Long term capital gain Rs. 27,01,95,945/- From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

166-169)  Copy of registered sales deed dated 28.10.14 between owner and buyer (Copy at PB Page 170-177) 11 ITA 128 & 127/JP/2019 & 285 & 289/JP/2019_ Nitin Kedia Vs DCIT with one Anr. 19 Sunil Jain Sunita Sharma  Copy of allotment letter of plot on the name of owner of year 1995 (Copy at PB Page 178-181)  Copy of registered

M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

166-169)  Copy of registered sales deed dated 28.10.14 between owner and buyer (Copy at PB Page 170-177) 11 ITA 128 & 127/JP/2019 & 285 & 289/JP/2019_ Nitin Kedia Vs DCIT with one Anr. 19 Sunil Jain Sunita Sharma  Copy of allotment letter of plot on the name of owner of year 1995 (Copy at PB Page 178-181)  Copy of registered

NITIN KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

166-169)  Copy of registered sales deed dated 28.10.14 between owner and buyer (Copy at PB Page 170-177) 11 ITA 128 & 127/JP/2019 & 285 & 289/JP/2019_ Nitin Kedia Vs DCIT with one Anr. 19 Sunil Jain Sunita Sharma  Copy of allotment letter of plot on the name of owner of year 1995 (Copy at PB Page 178-181)  Copy of registered

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. JYOTI FALOR, JAIPUR

166 ITD 161 (Kol – ITAT). CIT Vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal (2017) 251 Taxman 22 (Bombay H.C.). Ratan Kumar Sharma Vs. DCIT (ITAT – JPR ITA No. 797/JP/2014 order dated 25-7-1). Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02-07-2018 in Meeta Gutgutia Vs Pr. CIT (96 Taxmann.Com 468) have held that Invocation of section 153A

DCIT, C.C. -03, JAIPUR vs. SHRI TEJENDER KUMAR FALOR, JAIPUR

166 ITD 161 (Kol – ITAT). CIT Vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal (2017) 251 Taxman 22 (Bombay H.C.). Ratan Kumar Sharma Vs. DCIT (ITAT – JPR ITA No. 797/JP/2014 order dated 25-7-1). Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02-07-2018 in Meeta Gutgutia Vs Pr. CIT (96 Taxmann.Com 468) have held that Invocation of section 153A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SAROJ PARWAL, JAIPUR

166 ITD 161 (Kol – ITAT). CIT Vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal (2017) 251 Taxman 22 (Bombay H.C.). Ratan Kumar Sharma Vs. DCIT (ITAT – JPR ITA No. 797/JP/2014 order dated 25-7-1). Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02-07-2018 in Meeta Gutgutia Vs Pr. CIT (96 Taxmann.Com 468) have held that Invocation of section 153A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BITTHAL DAS PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

166 ITD 161 (Kol – ITAT). CIT Vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal (2017) 251 Taxman 22 (Bombay H.C.). Ratan Kumar Sharma Vs. DCIT (ITAT – JPR ITA No. 797/JP/2014 order dated 25-7-1). Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02-07-2018 in Meeta Gutgutia Vs Pr. CIT (96 Taxmann.Com 468) have held that Invocation of section 153A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

166 ITD 161 (Kol – ITAT). CIT Vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal (2017) 251 Taxman 22 (Bombay H.C.). Ratan Kumar Sharma Vs. DCIT (ITAT – JPR ITA No. 797/JP/2014 order dated 25-7-1). Recently Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 02-07-2018 in Meeta Gutgutia Vs Pr. CIT (96 Taxmann.Com 468) have held that Invocation of section 153A

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

transfer pricing adjustments. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same since the additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) was allowable only in the first year of purchase. The Dispute Resolution Panel held that the claim of additional depreciation on assets installed during the period 1.10.2008 was allowable and directed allowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee under Section

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

transfer the case) and not by JAO.\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v.\nACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225\n(Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO\nand FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

transfer the case) and not by JAO.\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v.\nACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225\n(Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO\nand FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

transfer the case) and not by JAO.\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v.\nACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225\n(Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO\nand FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing