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.

price for the purpose of Section 80A(6) of the Act. 30.11. The ld. D/R in his submissions relied strongly on the order of TPO and the method adopted by TPO for determining market rate of power. According to ld. D/R, TPO has adopted the rate of power at which Distribution companies purchase power from the Generating companies. We find

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

u/s 68 or tax the same u/s 115BBE - See M/S HIRAPANNA JEWELLERS AND (VICE-VERSA) [2021 (5) TMI 447 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] - thus the addition made is not sustainable and the same is directed to be deleted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. (vi) 2021 (5) TMI 447 - ITAT Visakhapatnam Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1 Visakhapatnam Versus

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

u/s. 263 by the Id. PCIT is bad in law and\ndeserves to be quashed and set-aside.\nGround No. 5:\nDeduction under section 10AA of the Act:\n6. That as submitted hereinabove subsequent to survey conducted on 17-\n18.08.2017, reassessment proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act were initiated and\n37\nITA No. 598/JP/2024\nPinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NIRMAK KUMAR KEDIA,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

price finally settled in between the buyer and assessee and no unaccounted money was taken by the assessee. In support of this contention, the assessee had also filed the affidavit in the case of almost all the plot holders and the sale consideration received to assessee against sales of plots is duly verifiable from such affidavits. The affidavits of several

SHRI NIRMAK KUMAR KEDIA,,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

price finally settled in between the buyer and assessee and no unaccounted money was taken by the assessee. In support of this contention, the assessee had also filed the affidavit in the case of almost all the plot holders and the sale consideration received to assessee against sales of plots is duly verifiable from such affidavits. The affidavits of several

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NITIN KEDIA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

price finally settled in between the buyer and assessee and no unaccounted money was taken by the assessee. In support of this contention, the assessee had also filed the affidavit in the case of almost all the plot holders and the sale consideration received to assessee against sales of plots is duly verifiable from such affidavits. The affidavits of several

SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

price finally settled in between the buyer and assessee and no unaccounted money was taken by the assessee. In support of this contention, the assessee had also filed the affidavit in the case of almost all the plot holders and the sale consideration received to assessee against sales of plots is duly verifiable from such affidavits. The affidavits of several

SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

price finally settled in between the buyer and assessee and no unaccounted money was taken by the assessee. In support of this contention, the assessee had also filed the affidavit in the case of almost all the plot holders and the sale consideration received to assessee against sales of plots is duly verifiable from such affidavits. The affidavits of several

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

price finally settled in between the buyer and assessee and no unaccounted money was taken by the assessee. In support of this contention, the assessee had also filed the affidavit in the case of almost all the plot holders and the sale consideration received to assessee against sales of plots is duly verifiable from such affidavits. The affidavits of several

MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

133A of the Act conducted in the case of assessee on 02.03.2020. During the year, the assessee earned commission income from real estate transactions and reported agricultural income. The case of the assessee was selected for compulsory scrutiny in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) on account of the survey. In the assessment

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

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

Bench: Him.

transfer invoice does not reflect the actual cost of item. They are normally above the cost price including margin. The method of valuation of inventory regularly adopted is cost or market price whichever is lower. Therefore, goods lying at Mumbai and Bangalore Branches given by the company during post survey proceedings should be valued at cost and thereby objected

RAJESH CHOUDHARY,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

133A of the I.T. Act, 1961 was carried out by Income Tax Department officials on 28.08.2018 at the business premises of assessee. That the statement of appellant is recorded 2 times. 1st statement was 3. recorded on 28.08.2018 (i.e. during survey) and second statement was recorded on 04.09.2018 (i.e. Post Survey). 3. (i). That during the survey proceeding statement

KOTHARI JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price.” 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and/or survey action u/s 133A of the Act were carried out by the Department on the members of KGK Group on 06.05.2010 of which the assessee is one of the members. Pursuant to issuance of notice

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

survey u/s 133A of the IT Act, 1961 at the business premises of the appellant assessee company on dated 02.08.2017 which was subsequently converted into search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") on 03-08-2017. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the appellant assessee has been non compliant

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

133A of the Income-tax Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 17th & 18th August 2017. While survey proceedings, it was gathered that another group concern of the assessee i.e. M/s. Pinkcity Colorstone Pvt. Ltd. was having strong profits but later on the same was closed and the Plant and Machinery as well as building

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

survey u/s 133A of the I.T. Act, 1961 conducted at shop no. 106-107, 1st or, Balaji Tower VI, Plot no. 4. Airport Plaza, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur occupied by Shri Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Shir Kailash Chand Gupta, Shri Radhey Shyam Khandelwal and Shri Manoj Gupta and used by these persons as a office for the business of property dealing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

transferred pursuant to the order under section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after the Act ] dated 04.05.2018 by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner. 8. Accordingly, notice u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961 for this year was issued on 30.07.2018 and duly served upon the assessee. In compliance to the notice u/s 153A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

transferred pursuant to the order under section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after the Act ] dated 04.05.2018 by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bikaner. 8. Accordingly, notice u/s 153A of the IT Act, 1961 for this year was issued on 30.07.2018 and duly served upon the assessee. In compliance to the notice u/s 153A

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