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,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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

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

price is appropriate. It may be mentioned that as pointed out by the appellant, the extinguishment of investments in CTL, owing to its merger with CVL, is not covered under the exceptions provided in section 47 of the Act. Section 47(vii), which exempts capital gain on the hands of shareholder of amalgamating company, as and when its shareholding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

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

price is appropriate. It may be mentioned that as pointed out by the appellant, the extinguishment of investments in CTL, owing to its merger with CVL, is not covered under the exceptions provided in section 47 of the Act. Section 47(vii), which exempts capital gain on the hands of shareholder of amalgamating company, as and when its shareholding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

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

price is appropriate. It may be mentioned that as pointed out by the appellant, the extinguishment of investments in CTL, owing to its merger with CVL, is not covered under the exceptions provided in section 47 of the Act. Section 47(vii), which exempts capital gain on the hands of shareholder of amalgamating company, as and when its shareholding

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transferred under sub-section (8)], on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, shall be non est if such assessment is not made in accordance with the procedure laid down under this section." (emphasis supplied) 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in submitting that Section

KIRAN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

Transfer Expenses 0 1000000 Less: Indexed Cost Cost of Purchase 206624 F.Y. 2007-08 101200/551*1125 Boundary Wall 347290 F.Y. 2009-10 195100/632*1125 Mitti Bharai 178802 F.Y. 2008-09 92500/582*1125 ------------------ 732716 267284 ---------- Gross Total Income 267284 Total Income 267284 Rounded off u/s 288A 267280 Adjusted total income (ATI) is not more than Rs. 20 Lakh, hence

SOURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

price of goods, such payment is not made in consideration of the transfer of goods. Such payment is meant for charity and is received and held in trust by the seller. If such amounts are meant to be credited to charity and do not form part of the income of the assessee they cannot be included in the transaction value

SAURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

price of goods, such payment is not made in consideration of the transfer of goods. Such payment is meant for charity and is received and held in trust by the seller. If such amounts are meant to be credited to charity and do not form part of the income of the assessee they cannot be included in the transaction value

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

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

Bench: Him.

391 c. Delhi Branch Stock – at Rs. 25,59,78,648/- d. Mumbai Branch Stock – at Rs. 53,62,45,741/- e. Bangalore Branch Stock at -Rs.16,51,51,691/- f. stock with other franchise at Rs. 10,65,57,868/- g. Consignment Stock at UK – at Rs. Rs.11,64,46,108 h. Consignment Stock

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

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

price) from the concerning person of all the 22 plots has not been taken in\nbooks.\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

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

NAVAL KISHORE ,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

391: [2000] 241 1TR 865 (Bom). This decision\nwas rendered by taking notice of the principle laid by the Hon'ble apex\nCourt in CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. [1992] 107 CTR (SC)\n209: [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) to the effect that in reassessment\nproceedings, an assessee can neither claim nor be allowed a\ndeduction that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SH. NAVAL KISHORE, KOTA

391: [2000] 241 1TR 865 (Bom). This decision \nwas rendered by taking notice of the principle laid by the Hon'ble apex \nCourt in CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. [1992] 107 CTR (SC) \n209: [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) to the effect that in reassessment \nproceedings, an assessee can neither claim nor be allowed a \ndeduction that

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)

transfer by Vinayak overseas and they were absconding. The Tribunal only on the statement of M.P. Sharma who was power of attorney holder of Vinayak overseas has given the finding. In our view, the finding is perverse. The view taken by the Tribunal is required to be reversed. 8. Apart from that merely voucher of the import export chanals

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable