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 it is mandatory

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

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

transferred, before the expiry of the period of ten years specified in sub-section (1), to another Indian company in a scheme of demerger,— (i) no deduction shall be admissible under sub-section (1) in the case of the demerged company for the previous year in which the demerger takes place; and (ii) the provisions of this section shall

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

transferred, before the expiry of the period of ten years specified in sub-section (1), to another Indian company in a scheme of demerger,— (i) no deduction shall be admissible under sub-section (1) in the case of the demerged company for the previous year in which the demerger takes place; and (ii) the provisions of this section shall

DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JPR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

transferred, before the expiry of the period of ten years specified in sub-section (1), to another Indian company in a scheme of demerger,— (i) no deduction shall be admissible under sub-section (1) in the case of the demerged company for the previous year in which the demerger takes place; and (ii) the provisions of this section shall

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

transferred, before the expiry of the period of ten years specified in sub-section (1), to another Indian company in a scheme of demerger,— (i) no deduction shall be admissible under sub-section (1) in the case of the demerged company for the previous year in which the demerger takes place; and (ii) the provisions of this section shall

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

transferred, before the expiry of the period of ten years specified in sub-section (1), to another Indian company in a scheme of demerger,— (i) no deduction shall be admissible under sub-section (1) in the case of the demerged company for the previous year in which the demerger takes place; and (ii) the provisions of this section shall

DCIT, CIRCLE-6 JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, TILAK NAGAR JPR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

transferred, before the expiry of the period of ten years specified in sub-section (1), to another Indian company in a scheme of demerger,— (i) no deduction shall be admissible under sub-section (1) in the case of the demerged company for the previous year in which the demerger takes place; and (ii) the provisions of this section shall

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

transferred, before the expiry of the period of ten years specified in sub-section (1), to another Indian company in a scheme of demerger,— (i) no deduction shall be admissible under sub-section (1) in the case of the demerged company for the previous year in which the demerger takes place; and (ii) the provisions of this section shall

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

transferred, before the expiry of the period of ten years specified in sub-section (1),\nto another Indian company in a scheme of demerger, —\n(i) no deduction shall be admissible under sub-section (1) in the case of the demerged\ncompany for the previous year in which the demerger takes place; and\n(ii) the provisions of this section

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

182 ITR 913 (SC); and iii. DCIT v. Sunita Finlease Ltd., [2011] 330 ITR 491 11.3 Furthermore, to back his contention that recourse cannot be taken to the provisions of Section 292B of the Act, reliance is placed on the following judgments: i. PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT, ITA No. 475 of 2011 (Del); and ii. Spice

JYPORE MANUFACTURING JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

182, Ratansikha Building, Janta\nColony, Jaipur. The survey team took the physical stock and inventorised.\nThe stock was valued by the Approved Valuer in the presence of directors\nof the company and other employees. The stock of gold jewellery, gold\njewellery studded with precious stones and silver utensils etc. found on\nphysical verification was of the value of\nRs.25

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and

Bench: Him.

182/-u/s 69B of the Act in respect of various locations by estimating the stock at the time of survey at various locations as follows: a. Head Office at Rs. 89,18,794/- b. Panch Batti Stock at Rs. 63,44,89,391 c. Delhi Branch Stock – at Rs. 25,59,78,648/- d. Mumbai Branch Stock

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

transferred by Shri Shri Madho Lal Saini and Others. Madan Mohan Gupta and his wife Smt. Shashi Kala Gupta were the shares of M/s Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. which owned the land in question. There may be a case of under valuation of shares and understatement of consideration paid by the assessee however, it is not a case of purchase

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

price received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred the cost. It is the realisation of excess over the cost incurred that only forms part of the profit included in the consideration of sales. (4) Manmohan Sadhani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 304 ITR 0052 – Hon’ble M.P. HighCourt In this

SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

transferred through the bank account does not prove that the money is explained. The appellant has submitted that Shri Bhanwar Lal Jain or any of the person whose statements were being relied upon by the Id. AO, was neither prop nor partner/director in alleged bogus concerns and all such parties had given their confirmations about selling the goods

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

transfer of cash to such unexplained advances. If the undisclosed income earned and accumulated over the years is taxed in the year in which it is detected by the Revenue and the same is merely taxed as per normal provisions of the law such an interpretation will place a premium on dishonesty i.e. it tantamounts to rewarding the dishonesty. There

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

prices of gold were doubling or tripling after the next day or the jewellery would not have been available on the next day. The rush was at the Jewellers apparently due to the reason that some people wanted to buy jewellery in cash using the demonetised currency which they could not have deposited in the bank account as that

BLUEPRINT INFRAHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. ADIT CPC BENGALURU OR ITO WARD 6(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

transferred to National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in February, 2017; we had not been able to hold AGM of "Saitech Medicare Private Limited" since 2015. Whenever we tried to hold AGM; Mr. Bhalotia invoked CLB which restrained us from holding AGM and ultimately we had to give an undertaking to the CLB of not holding any AGM without