ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

32(1)(ii) of the Act. Ergo we decide accordingly, and the additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 62. Ground No. 6 (Additional Ground no. 2) of the assessee’s appeal raised by the ld. A/R of the assessee is in relation to allowability of interest paid on late deposit of TDS amounting to Rs. 1

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

32(1)(ii) of the Act. Ergo we decide accordingly, and the additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.\n62. Ground No. 6 (Additional Ground no. 2) of the assessee’s appeal raised by the ld. A/R of the assessee is in relation to allowability of interest paid on late deposit of TDS amounting to Rs. 1

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.

32(1)(ii) of the Act. Ergo we decide accordingly, and the additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 62. Ground No. 6 (Additional Ground no. 2) of the assessee’s appeal raised by the ld. A/R of the assessee is in relation to allowability of interest paid on late deposit of TDS amounting to Rs. 1

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.

32(1)(ii) of the Act. Ergo we decide accordingly, and the additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 62. Ground No. 6 (Additional Ground no. 2) of the assessee’s appeal raised by the ld. A/R of the assessee is in relation to allowability of interest paid on late deposit of TDS amounting to Rs. 1

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

32(1)(ii) of the Act. Ergo\nwe decide accordingly, and the additional ground no. 1 raised by\nthe assessee is allowed.\n62. Ground No. 6 (Additional Ground no. 2) of the assessee’s\nappeal raised by the ld. A/R of the assessee is in relation to\nallowability of interest paid on late deposit of TDS amounting\nto Rs. 1

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalrashleela Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., C-5, Krishna Balram, Calgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017. Pan No.: Aadcr2594J ...... Appellant Vs.

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), the date on which he has so taken or retained possession of such land or part ;] (ii) notwithstanding anything contained in clause (i), where an asset representing expenditure of a capital nature incurred before the 1st day of April, 1967, ceases to be used in a previous year for scientific research related

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

transfer entry in accounts. No benefit obtained. Section 41(1) was not applicable. (P.B. 1 to 7 of II) (2) CIT Vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 408 (Del): Remission or cessation of trading liability. Scope of sec. 41. Liability to 15 ITA 267/JP/2020_ ITO Vs Amit Agarwal creditors outstanding for more than four years. Liability shown

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

price through fictitious invoices in the name of the parties mentioned in the letter. 3.4 In response to the Final Show cause notice the A/R of the assessee filed written submission on 23rd Dec., 2016. The assessee contended that the address taken from purchase bills has been supplied, further, during the year in some of the cases the amount

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section 144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section 144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section 144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section 144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

transferred or services provided in [the international transaction or the specified domestic transaction]; As per clause (ii) of Rule 10B such price is to be adjusted for difference. No appropriate adjustment was made by TPO/AO for basic difference i.e. the assessee company was not in existence at the time of approval of tender, It was merely conduit company

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

transferred or services provided in [the international transaction or the specified domestic transaction]; As per clause (ii) of Rule 10B such price is to be adjusted for difference. No appropriate adjustment was made by TPO/AO for basic difference i.e. the assessee company was not in existence at the time of approval of tender, It was merely conduit company

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

32,96,800/- (as per excel sheet found from the PC of \nPrakash) and cash payment of Rs.60,83,46,930/- (as per excel sheet \nfound from the PC of Prakash) an amount of Rs.2,21,45,130/- was \nrecorded in the books of accounts and reflected in ledger produced above \nbeing cash payment for the stamp charges. Thus

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

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3)\nof section 92CA; and\n(ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company:\n11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section\n144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed\nassessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

price of property.\n5. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer the\nassessee preferred an appeal before the Id. CIT(A). Apropos to the\ngrounds so raised by the assessee, the relevant finding of the Id.\nCIT(A) is as under:-\n\"In this case the search action took place on 02.08.2017. Appellant had\nfiled his original return