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

ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment [or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in which order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260

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

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA

transfer.\nTherefore, section 52(2) had no application to the present case and the\nITO could have no reason to believe that any part of the income of the\nassessee had escaped assessment so as to justify the issue of a notice\nunder section 148.\"\n1.1.8.2CIT v. K.K. Enterprises [2009] 178 Taxman 187 (Raj.) it was held\nas under

M/S DEEPS SPECIAL STEELS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 50C were not attracted in the case of lease hold property, and the assessee was found to have taken said land on lease of 99 years, and as such, it was not a capital asset. Sale of shares of KAPPAC PHARMA 9. Coming to the only issue of sale of KAPPAC Pharma, argued before us, during the year under

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

transfer of long-term capital asset being equity shares of company shall not be form part of total income if securities transaction tax is applicable on such transaction. In the present case, the share in which Appellant was invested were long term capital assets and it is clearly evident from the contract notes that securities transaction tax was charged

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

260\nNote No. 2.15-: Cost Of Material Consumed\nParticulars\n(Amount in)\nFor the year ended For the year ended\n31st March 2012\n31st March 2011\nA. Raw Material\nOpening Stock\nOld Gold\nSilver\nCopper\nAdd: Purchase\n24 Kt. Fine Gold\nOld Gold\nSilver\nTotal A\n196,902\n231,610\n4,957\n433,469\n292

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

260 261 House SEZ Unit for the A.Y. 2015-2016. 11. Copy of ledger of Plant & Machinery of Pinck City Jewel 262 264 House Mahapura Unit for the A.Y. 2013-2014 & 2015-2016 PAPER BOOK-III SNo. Particulars Page No. From To 1. Copy of application dated 16.10.2023 and 19.10.2023 along 265 268 with the challan. 2. Copy letter dated

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will have

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER 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

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

TARA SONI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders\nas to cost

transfer of share certificate to demat account along with\ncopies of holding statement in demat account, balance sheet as on 31st March, 2003, sale\nbill, bank account, demat account and official report and quotations of Calcutta Stock\nExchange Association Ltd. on 23rd July, 2003. In our view, present appeal does not raise\nany question of law, much less any substantial

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

transferred from one side to another but in the present case, the main issues like basis, purpose and intent of such unauthenticated excel sheet, why government and other lands, lands even without description are also incorporated in excel sheet, what is actual date of payment, etc. remain a suspense even till end. There is no statement or examination

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

transferred from one side to another but in the present case, the main issues like basis, purpose and intent of such unauthenticated excel sheet, why government and other lands, lands even without description are also incorporated in excel sheet, what is actual date of payment, etc. remain a suspense even till end. There is no statement or examination

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. BANAS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS LLP, JHALAWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

transferred from one side to another but in the present case, the main issues like basis, purpose and intent of such unauthenticated excel sheet, why government and other lands, lands even without description are also incorporated in excel sheet, what is actual date of payment, etc. remain a suspense even till end. There is no statement or examination

VIRENDRA PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

260,000\n1,400,000\n280,000\n56,940,000\n6,385,000\n63,325,000\n11,308\n\nIV. Registered agreement to sale explicitly records the agreed price as Rs.\n11,308 per sq. ft. (for 5,600 sq. ft.). The assessee, as mentioned in the above\ntable, secured a discount of Rs.22,40,000 (amounting to Rs.400