Search: transfer pricing

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1196/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1197/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1198/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1199/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1200/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1201/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1202/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1338/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1339/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1340/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1341/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1342/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1343/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1344/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153A

44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that the sellers were farmers but there are various other records required to be maintained by the samiti mandatorily which prove that the sales were made by the farmers