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. 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

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

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

M/S RAMAVTAR KRISHANAVTAR,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

transfer of the commodity or scrips: iv. That there was amendment in Section 43(5) of the act through finance act 2013 and sub clause (e) was newly inserted which is reproduce as under: 43(5)(e) an eligible transaction in respect of trading in commodity derivatives carried out in recognized stock exchange, which is chargeable to commodities transaction

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

6,20,91,72,703/- granted to the appellant \nas capital receipt which are not exigible to tax while computing total \nincome under normal provisions of the Act and under the provisions of \nSec. 115JB of the Act.\n6. That the appellant craves leave to add, to amend, modify, rescind, \nsupplement or alter any of the Grounds stated here

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

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section\n24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27\nof 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such\nreference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing\nOfficer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER vs. WONDER CEMENT LTD, MADANGANJ-KISHANGARH

In the result Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

43 and 43A of the 1948 Act, a contract was entered into between the assessee and the State Electricity Board for supply of the surplus electricity by the former to the latter. The price for supply of such electricity by the assessee to the State Electricity Board was fixed at Rs. 2.32 per unit as per the contract. This price

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

DEVIKA BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

43,401. As a result, grounds No. 2-6 raised in assessee’s appeal are allowed.” " Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of ITO vs. Ms Goodfarm Rearing, Ahmedabad, dated 01.04.2025, [ITA No.1081/Ahd/2023] “4.2. The CIT(A) agreed with the assessee and held that the addition was based merely on suspicion and non-compliance under section 133(6

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)

6 raised by the assessee there, Learned CIT (A) has not given full particulars of the decision, relating to the assessment year 2010-11. Even otherwise, as observed by Learned CIT (A), disallowance u/s 14A of the Act worked out to be Nil as the investment had its source in cash generated from business operation

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)

6 raised by the assessee there, Learned CIT (A) has not given full particulars of the decision, relating to the assessment year 2010-11. Even otherwise, as observed by Learned CIT (A), disallowance u/s 14A of the Act worked out to be Nil as the investment had its source in cash generated from business operation

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)

6 raised by the assessee there, Learned CIT (A) has not given full particulars of the decision, relating to the assessment year 2010-11. Even otherwise, as observed by Learned CIT (A), disallowance u/s 14A of the Act worked out to be Nil as the investment had its source in cash generated from business operation

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

43,927/- u/s 69C of the Act, contrary to the order of Ld. DCIT-TP \n2(3)(1) and Hon'ble DRP. The said addition is against the facts of the case and \nillegal. Hence, deserves to be deleted. \n\n10. Under the facts and in law, the Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in initiating penalty \nunder section 270A & 271AAC

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

6 raised by the\nassessee there, Learned CIT (A) has not given full particulars of the\ndecision, relating to the assessment year 2010-11. Even otherwise, as\nobserved by Learned CIT (A), disallowance u/s 14A of the Act worked out\nto be Nil as the investment had its source in cash generated from business\noperation.\n023\nITA