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

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

Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alone should not be the basis, for arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. If the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961, have to be conferred with the power, to be exercised, solely on the basis of a statement, then it may lead to an arbitrary exercise of such

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

Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alone should not be the basis, for arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. If the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961, have to be conferred with the power, to be exercised, solely on the basis of a statement, then it may lead to an arbitrary exercise of such

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

Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alone should not be the basis, for arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. If the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961, have to be conferred with the power, to be exercised, solely on the basis of a statement, then it may lead to an arbitrary exercise of such

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

172 (Raj.); Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,\n(2008) 174 Taxman 466 (Gujarat); Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II,\nMumbai Vs. Omprakash K. Jain, (2009) 178 Taxman 179 (Bombay); Mehta\nParikh & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC); Shree\nGanesh Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of IncomeTax, Dhanbad, (2013) 257 CTR\n159 (Jharkhand); Commissioner

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

172 (All.) wherein it was held that AO has power to reassess the return of the assessee only from the undisclosed income found during the course of search and where no undisclosed income is found then the AO cannot made any reassessment. Thus this judgment cited by ld. D/R is also of no help. The D/R has also relied upon

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

172-201 Asha Jain 2011-12 94-124 2010-11 69-99 Para 11 to Mukesh Jain 29 11.5 pages 2011-12 118-149 30-34 Para 11 to SangeetaMantri 2011-12 98-128 29 11.5 pages 32-36 11 to 11.6 Sunita Agrawal 2011-12 66-93 29-30 pages 32-36 From the perusal of the grounds

ACIT, CC-4, , JAIPUR vs. SHRI ANSHUL JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

172-201 Asha Jain 2011-12 94-124 2010-11 69-99 Para 11 to Mukesh Jain 29 11.5 pages 2011-12 118-149 30-34 Para 11 to SangeetaMantri 2011-12 98-128 29 11.5 pages 32-36 11 to 11.6 Sunita Agrawal 2011-12 66-93 29-30 pages 32-36 From the perusal of the grounds

ACIT, C.C. -4, JAIPUR vs. MAVERICK COMMODITY BROKERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

172-201 Asha Jain 2011-12 94-124 2010-11 69-99 Para 11 to Mukesh Jain 29 11.5 pages 2011-12 118-149 30-34 Para 11 to SangeetaMantri 2011-12 98-128 29 11.5 pages 32-36 11 to 11.6 Sunita Agrawal 2011-12 66-93 29-30 pages 32-36 From the perusal of the grounds

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

172-201 Asha Jain 2011-12 94-124 2010-11 69-99 Para 11 to Mukesh Jain 29 11.5 pages 2011-12 118-149 30-34 Para 11 to SangeetaMantri 2011-12 98-128 29 11.5 pages 32-36 11 to 11.6 Sunita Agrawal 2011-12 66-93 29-30 pages 32-36 From the perusal of the grounds

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

172-201 Asha Jain 2011-12 94-124 2010-11 69-99 Para 11 to Mukesh Jain 29 11.5 pages 2011-12 118-149 30-34 Para 11 to SangeetaMantri 2011-12 98-128 29 11.5 pages 32-36 11 to 11.6 Sunita Agrawal 2011-12 66-93 29-30 pages 32-36 From the perusal of the grounds

SURYA SINGHAL,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

172 (Raj.) wherein it was\nheld that admission in statement during search is not conclusive\nproof of fact and can always be explained.\nviii) Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of DCIT Vs Ashok Kumar\nAgarwal in ITA No 847/JP/ 2015 order dated 3/10/2016 that:-\n\"16. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

price of the immovable property was Rs.40 lakhs. In the\ncourse of search action it has been found that the appellant has been regularly\nindulging in transactions of sale and purchase of immovable properties and it\ncannot be said that he is not having other sources of income and he has been\nearning income as middleman and income as gain

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

172 where the question presented before the Hon’ble High Court was that “Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee having furnished the details that the lease hold rights were intangible assets before the Assessing Officer it should be deemed that the details was deemed to have been examined and relief granted in favour of the assessee

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

price of the immovable property was Rs.40 lakhs. In the\ncourse of search action it has been found that the appellant has been regularly\nindulging in transactions of sale and purchase of immovable properties and it\ncannot be said that he is not having other sources of income and he has been\nearning income as middleman and income as gain

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

price of the immovable property was Rs.40 lakhs. In the\ncourse of search action it has been found that the appellant has been regularly\nindulging in transactions of sale and purchase of immovable properties and it\ncannot be said that he is not having other sources of income and he has been\nearning income as middleman and income as gain

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 139; 38. The refund has been granted by way of adjustment against the demand in A.Y. 2012-13 on 18.12.2019. Therefore, interest u/s. 244A of the Act is to be calculated from 01.04.2018 to 18.12.2019 i.e. for 21 months. All these facts were explained before the Ld. CIT (A) but the same were ignored by him. In view