Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd., ... vs Acit, Jaipur on 30 May, 2017

Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 24 October, 2018

It was submitted that all the expenses have been incurred at close vicinity of its different mining area where the assessee business activities are being undertaken and its employees/workers are equally benefited by the incurrence by such 16 ITA No. 47 & 183/JP/2018 Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd.,vs. ACIT, Jaipur expenditure besides the local people/villagers residing in those areas. It was further submitted that these expenses such as payment to district collector for desert festival help the assessee in its business promotion besides the smooth functioning of its business as the mining activity involves acquisition of land of the villagers in the mining area which results in negative feelings, agitations and unrest by the local villagers and it was accordingly submitted that these expenses are incurred solely for the purpose of the business of the assessee and should be allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 45 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

G.D. Minerals, Jaipur vs Acit, Jaipur on 8 December, 2017

"I have duly considered the submission of the appellant, assessment order and the material placed on record. The appellant has not brought on record the justification of lump sum payment of Rs. 5 lac each to these two HUFs covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act as the commission payment was not commensurate with the services rendered by these entities. It is 4 ITA No. 13/JP/2016 G.D.Minerals, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur difficult to understand that how commission of Rs. 10 lac can be paid on total sales of Rs. 10,34,690/- made through these entities. The rate of commission payment to these two entities is 97% which is much higher than the average rate of commission @ 33% paid to other entities. The appellant has failed to brought on record any material which may justify the payment of such huge commission of 97% of the sale made through these two entities. The contention of the appellant that the AO cannot sit in the armchair of the assessee has no weight and deserves to be rejected looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is the duty of the AO to examine the payments to entities covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act and the AO has appreciated the facts of the case in a correct perspective. The appellant has not brought on record copy of any agreement executed with these two HUFs for which commission was paid."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 29 March, 2019

15. Regarding bonus payment in respect of Bapi Grinding Unit for accounting Year 2012-13, the bill was submitted to the assessee company on 20.11.2013. It was accordingly submitted that the lower authorities were not justified in 2 ITA No. 1087/JP/2018 Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. The DCIT, Jaipur rejecting the claim of the assessee since the liability was disputed earlier and has only crystallized and settled during the year.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pratap Rajasthan Special Steels, ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 8 March, 2018

6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. As submitted by the ld. AR, the transaction relating to sale of the factory land and building is pending adjudication before the ld. CIT(A) and the subject appeal also arises out of the same transaction. It would therefore be relevant to know the outcome of the said proceedings arising under the original assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act before we decide the present appeal. We accordingly set-aside the matter to the file of 3 ITA No. 58/JP/2018. M/s Pratap Rajasthan Special Steel Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh. Needless to say, the assesse shall attend to the proceedings before the ld CIT(A), shall not seek any adjournment without reasonable cause and shall submit necessary information documentation as may be called for by the ld. CIT(A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Ashok Dharendra, Jaipur vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 12 April, 2022

(1) S.P. Goyal VS. DCIT (2002) 77 TTJ 1 (Mum) (2) Chandra Mohan Mehta Vs. ACIT (1999) 65 TTJ 327 (Pune) (3) Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd. VsACIT (2006) 100 TTJ 665 (Del) (4) Kishan Chand Sobhraj Mal (1991) 42 TTJ 423 (JP) (5) CIT Vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Del) (6) Lal Chand Agarwal vsA CIT 21 TW 213 (ITAT Jaipur) (7) CIT Vs. S.M. Agarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del) (8) CIT Vs. Girish Choudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (9) JayantiLal Patel Vs. ACIT (1998) 233 ITR 588 (Raj) (10) RakeshGoyal Vs. ACIT (2004) 87 TTJ 151 (Del) (11) ITO Vs. Manna LalJhalani 22 TW 551 (ITAT Jaipur) (12) Hissaria Brother Vs. ACIT 22 TW 684 (ITAT Jaipur) (13) DCIT Vs. Countrywide Buildestate Pvt Ltd. (2012) 48 TW 50
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next