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)

section 139(1). In this case, assessee has not filed a revised to claim reliability charges of Rs. 1.50 per unit in computing Transfer Price of Power for the purpose of deduction u/s 80-1A of the Act and therefore, same was rightly rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). However, Hon'ble ITAT has allowed the same without giving

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 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

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

price. A loss is obviously created. Illustration X wants a manufactured loss of Rs 100 to reduce taxable income. While Y wants to launder Rs 100 untaxed money. A broker puts X and Y on the opposite SIDE of a series of trades in some options contracts that is in effect substance less. The trades will be matched such that

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer from\nother party and subsequently, sold same in stock exchange - However, there were no\ndiscrepancies in documents filed by assessee claiming deductions under section\n10(38) - Further, even though all characteristics of penny stock existed in present\ncase, still revenue had not brought on record any materials linking assessee in any of\ndubious transactions relating to entry, price rigging

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act) to challenge order dated 28.4.1999 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal), Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, whereby order dated 14.3.1990 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bhatinda setting aside the assessment order, has been affirmed. The revenue has framed the following questions

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transfer upon Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General of National e- Assessment Centre and not upon any other Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. As is evident from the above, the Court came to the firm conclusion that irrespective of the system of faceless assessment that

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transfer upon Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General of National e- Assessment Centre and not upon any other Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. As is evident from the above, the Court came to the firm conclusion that irrespective of the system of faceless assessment that

AGRASEN PRIMSES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

transferred the\nmoney from the normal banking channel. The report of the investigation wing\nrelied and reproduced some of the content of its is in relation to the claim of the\nunaccounted income into the claim of exempt income without payment of tax,\nwhereas the fact in this case the assessee has invested the money out of the\ndisclosed source

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

260A of the Act. The\nappeal had been admitted on two substantial questions relating to whether an\naddition of undisclosed income may be made on the basis of loose sheets found\nin the search, particularly when the assessee therein had accepted, in his sworn\nstatement, that the information contained in the sheets reflected his undisclosed\nincome. In that case

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

260A (Set-Aside) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on17.10.2018. I 6 Dinesh Haldia vs. DCIT have found that the AO passed order in light of Judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble High Court. The Ld. A.O. in para 11 of the assessment order has held the purchases of Rs. 13,00,000/- to be bogus and further that there

NASH FASHION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

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

price of the equipments purchased directly by the done insitution. The first scenario will not qualify for deduction as what has been donated is property in kind, however the second scenario will qualify for deduction as what has been spent and transferred is sum of money and not property in kind. In our view, the facts of the present scenario

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. NASH FASHION(INDIA) LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

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

price of the equipments purchased directly by the done insitution. The first scenario will not qualify for deduction as what has been donated is property in kind, however the second scenario will qualify for deduction as what has been spent and transferred is sum of money and not property in kind. In our view, the facts of the present scenario

NASH FASHION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

price of the equipments purchased directly\nby the done insitution. The first scenario will not qualify for deduction as what\nhas been donated is property in kind, however the second scenario will qualify\nfor deduction as what has been spent and transferred is sum of money and not\nproperty in kind. In our view, the facts of the present scenario

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

price) from the concerning person of all the 22 plots has not been taken in\nbooks.\n\n4. The trust property is used Personal benefit of the president\nShri Tejndra Pal Singh has taken loan & advances of Rs.31,50,000/- from the\ntrust and violated the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act. Further no proper\nbooks of accounts