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.

transfer price of power. We further, from the facts of the assessee’s case as stated above, where there is both exclusivity (resulting in huge capex for single user) advantage and uninterrupted power supply, we on facts, agree with the assessee’s claim that Rs. 1.50/unit is the minimum reliability surcharge at arm’s length principles. As regards

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)

Transfer Price of Power for the purpose of Deduction u/s 80-IA in respect to its eligible power undertakings merely on the contention that such claim has not been made vide the return of income. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified and erred in confirming the disallowance

RAJASTHAN DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

price list provided for govt. sale or to any other customer. Accordingly, assessee supply the medicines to EDSP by raising its invoice an EDSP further supply the goods of Govt. hospital by raising its own invoice. 2. As per the purchase policy of the Government hospitals in the stat of U, public sector undertaking can supply the medicine through

MANISH GOVIND DANGI,UDIAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE (INTL.TAX), JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

transfer pricing adjustments (ALP-adjustments) and as a result there will not be correct determination of tax liability of the assessee company. Therefore, we have to admit these additional evidences. In the light of the facts and circumstances, as explained above, and in the interest of justice and fair play, we admit these additional evidences (relating to working capital adjustments

SURYA SINGHAL,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS) JP (2017) 87 taxmann.com 184 (Rajasthan) and CIT Vs\nVegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192(SC) The Hon'ble\nCourt held that if, two views are possible, the view in favour of the\nassessee should be preferred.\n(b) Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs CIT, Dhanbad (2013) 257 CTR\n159 (Jharkhand)\n(c) CIT, Karnataka Vs Shri Ramdas

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

transfer pricing audit has certified that the particulars given in the Annexure of Form 3CEB are true and correct. 8.4 On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT has erred in holding that there was a deliberate attempt of the appellant of non-disclosure by not filing Balance sheet in VAT15BS and Profit & loss account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER vs. ANOOP KUMAR GUPTA, AJMER

In the result appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

TDS was also deducted. However subsequently when the shares were sold, this unsecured loan has been consideration of shares sold. adjusted towards the Amount of 3.58 Cr was received by Sh Ashok Jain not by Shri Anoop Gupta. Thus there was no material with the AO to show that the assessee has actually received the amount of Rs. 6.21 crores

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER vs. CHANDRA KANT SAINI , AJMER

In the result appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

TDS was also deducted. However subsequently when the shares were sold, this unsecured loan has been consideration of shares sold. adjusted towards the Amount of 3.58 Cr was received by Sh Ashok Jain not by Shri Anoop Gupta. Thus there was no material with the AO to show that the assessee has actually received the amount of Rs. 6.21 crores

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Transfer Pricing Officer and TPO-I, held that international transactions of assessee company were within Arm's Length Price and hence no adjustment was necessary for assessment year 2010-2011-AO made disallowance of lab analysis fees of Rs.8,92,635/- on account of non deduction of TDS

MANIRATNAM GEMS PVT. LTD.,BEAWAR vs. ACIT,C-2, AJMER

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

Transfer Pricing were not applicable, and there was no requirement of any reference to TPO. The appellant also referred to the letter submitted during the assessment in this regard and also details of payments made to related parties in the tax audit report which also indicates that there are no such payments to any associated enterprises. 5. The second objection

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

transfer pricing adjustments. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same since the additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) was allowable only in the first year of purchase. The Dispute Resolution Panel held that the claim of additional depreciation on assets installed during the period 1.10.2008 was allowable and directed allowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee under Section

M/S. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

TDS on Interest Income amounting to Rs.20438/-. 5. The assessee craves to amend, alter and modify any of the grounds of appeal. 6. The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee.” Grounds of revenue’s appeal “1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) was justified in allowing deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. M/S. BARMER LIGNITE MINING CORPORATION LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

TDS on Interest Income amounting to Rs.20438/-. 5. The assessee craves to amend, alter and modify any of the grounds of appeal. 6. The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee.” Grounds of revenue’s appeal “1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) was justified in allowing deduction

M/S. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

TDS on Interest Income amounting to Rs.20438/-. 5. The assessee craves to amend, alter and modify any of the grounds of appeal. 6. The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee.” Grounds of revenue’s appeal “1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) was justified in allowing deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. M/S. BARMER LIGNITE MINING CORPORATION LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part whereas the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

TDS on Interest Income amounting to Rs.20438/-. 5. The assessee craves to amend, alter and modify any of the grounds of appeal. 6. The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee.” Grounds of revenue’s appeal “1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) was justified in allowing deduction

SHANKAR ENGINEERING WORKS FOUNDRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(2), JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Price Inflation Index as notified by CBDT vide Notification No.44/2017 dated 05/06/2017 for the Question FY i.e. 2016-17 while it is applicable w.e.f. FY 2017-18 only, for calculating Indexed cost of Acquisition as well as Improvement, therefore complete capital gain as calculated by the then is wrong and deserve to be deleted led complete addition is illegal

VODAFONE DIGILINK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

transferred any income to the distributor but the distributor was allowed to avail the airtime to the extent of MRP price. In books of account, the assessee had credited these receipts on net basis. The finding on the case of Tata Tele Services is reproduced as under: 19 M/s. Vodafone Digilink Ltd., Jaipur. “2.23. We find merit in the contention

RAVI MANOHAR BATWARA,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT-1, JAIPUR

price of shares of this company was as sharp and the share which was Rs. 200 in April to June, 2013 fell to Rs. 73 in October, 2013 and Rs. 9.50 in October, 2014 to Rs. 0.35 in September, 2016. The assessee was able to sell during the short period during which the share had peaked. The AO was required

NASH FASHION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA no

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

TDS on interest payment to M/s SE Investment Ltd. and disallowance of Rs. 1,27,67,676/-on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80G and the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench Jaipur vide its order dated 01.10.2018 set aside the aforesaid issues to the file of the AO to verify the claim of the assessee that recipient NBFCs