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

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)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

SHRI DEEPAK KHANNA,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

80C and 80TTA at Rs. 1,60,000/-. The case was 3 Shri Deepak Khanna vs. Pr. CIT-2 selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS. Notice u/s. 143(2). After considering the facts of the case and details / explanation / clarification filed by the assessee on e portal, the return of income as declared by the assessee is accepted

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

transferred to NFAC. The NFAC has passed the Exparty order on\ndt.29.11.2023, despite the Ws and reply filed by the assessee. The order was received on\nportal on dt. 29.11.2023 and on email, which was not served upon the assessee physical.\nHowever as per date of order the appeal was to be filed on or before 28.01.2024 but the\nsame

CHAMELI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

26. In view of the above discussion and findings, this appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order is set aside in the manner indicated above, while modifying the first mentioned addition of Rs

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

80C of the Act, due to the reason that the assessee had failed to support the claim regarding deductions in respect of certain FDRs. Another addition of Rs. 2,04,256/- also came to be made by the Assessing Officer due to unexplained investment in certain other FDRs. Appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed 2. When the matter came

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

price of property. Sh. Magendra Singh Rathore 5. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised by the assessee, the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- “In this case the search action took place on 02.08.2017. Appellant had filed

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

MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

80C of Rs.1,00,000/- and assessee also paid some payments during F.Y. 2009-10 through PNB Bank to LIC, Max etc. at Rs.84,889/-. The AO further noted that the assessee stated that cash balance of Rs.1,47,000/- was paid out of his brokerage income already shown in ITR then as to how it is possible that assessee