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

NEERU MOHAN NAGPAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD 2(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

190/- on which after claiming\ncurrent year losses of Rs. 10,67,547/- the total income declared was of Rs.\n19,69,643/-. It is further seen that the long-term capital gain was of Rs.\n27,90,552/- in the original return of income but the same was reduced to\nNIL in the revised return of income. Current year

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

190 6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: Ground No. 1 4.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price\nmentioned in the sale deed and stamp value levied under Stamp Duty Act\namounting to Rs.58,36,000/- has been brought to tax.\nDuring the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has uploaded written\nsubmission, letter of allotment and the case laws relied upon in support of his\ncontention and claimed that the addition made deserves to be deleted

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

190-199], for\n assessment year 2018-2019, the assessment order was passed on\n12.04.2021. In A.Y. 2016-2017, the Id. Assessing Officer has allowed\ndeduction u/s. 10AA by dividing the common expenses incurred by\nMahapura Domestic Tariff Area Unit &Sitapura SEZ Unit- I proportionately. In\nA.Y. 2017-2018 & A.Y. 2018-2019, the Id. Assessing Officer has applied

HARI NARAYAN MEENA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JAIPUR

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,\n[Here in after referred as “Act”] by the AO.\n2\nITA No. 56/JPR/2024\nHari Narayan Meena. vs.ITO\n2.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is\ndelay of 60 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which\nthe Id. AR of the assessee filed

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

190-193)  Copy of registered sales deed dated 11.04.14 between owner and buyer (Copy at PB Page 194-201) 25 Ankit Choudhary Ritu Chhabra  Copy of allotment letter of plot on the name of owner of year 1995 (Copy at PB Page 202-203)  Copy of registered sales deed dated 19.10.14 between owner and buyer (Copy at PB Page

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

190-193)  Copy of registered sales deed dated 11.04.14 between owner and buyer (Copy at PB Page 194-201) 25 Ankit Choudhary Ritu Chhabra  Copy of allotment letter of plot on the name of owner of year 1995 (Copy at PB Page 202-203)  Copy of registered sales deed dated 19.10.14 between owner and buyer (Copy at PB Page

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

190-193)  Copy of registered sales deed dated 11.04.14 between owner and buyer (Copy at PB Page 194-201) 25 Ankit Choudhary Ritu Chhabra  Copy of allotment letter of plot on the name of owner of year 1995 (Copy at PB Page 202-203)  Copy of registered sales deed dated 19.10.14 between owner and buyer (Copy at PB Page

M/S NABH MULTITRADE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

190/- per share. To substantiate the value of equity shares, the assessee filed the Valuation Report whereby the Registered Valuer has determined the value of the shares at Rs. 230/- per share. The sole controversy is around the value of the land being the asset of the assessee company which was acquired by the assessee

RAJASTHAN TRANSMAT PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 7(2),, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MEETHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

190/- on 20-09-2012. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of transmission line and hardware. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 07-08-2013 fixing the case for hearing on 26- 08-2013 which was got served upon the assessee within

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

transfer of ownership and management of the assessee company, would be handled by the erstwhile management group. It was further submitted that Sh. Jagdish Narain Khandelwal an employee of the erstwhile management who looks after the income tax matters collected the duly filled Form No. 36 and other papers from the Counsel and he handed over the said papers

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

prices and market capitals. These stocks are highly speculative and they are categorized as high risk stocks largely due to lack of liquidity. Furthermore, the shares of the penny stock are closely held as the general public is not interested in these stocks due to the poor financials of the listed companies. It is for such reasons the entry operators

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

prices and market capitals. These stocks are highly speculative and they are categorized as high risk stocks largely due to lack of liquidity. Furthermore, the shares of the penny stock are closely held as the general public is not interested in these stocks due to the poor financials of the listed companies. It is for such reasons the entry operators

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

price is considered and rejected as the assessee has issued shares of Rs. 10 face value at a premium of Rs. 190 which by no stretch of imagination appears to be reasonable. iii. The assessee cannot at any time answer the fact that with such financial credentials how can a company or individual Invest such high share application money without

MOHAMMED SABIR BABUBHAI SHAIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price of property, the cost of acquisition is not known.\nThe appellant has also not substantiated or explained the difference in the sale\nprice and the stamp value also. In view of any evidences submitted to the\ncontrary by the appellant that action of the AO in taking the cost of acquisition as\nnil and added

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

190 and the SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 230 Taxman 268 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) 7. On the other hand, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that prior to the search U/s 132 of the Act, the assessment of the assessee was completed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

190 and the SLP filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 230 Taxman 268 (Hon'ble Supreme Court) 7. On the other hand, the ld AR of the assessee has submitted that prior to the search U/s 132 of the Act, the assessment of the assessee was completed