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. 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.

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

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

transfer price of power. We further, from the facts of the\nassessee’s case as stated above, where there is both exclusivity\n(resulting in huge capex for single user) advantage and\nuninterrupted power supply, we on facts, agree with the assessee’s\nclaim that Rs. 1.50/unit is the minimum reliability surcharge at\narm’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

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. 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

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

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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. NASH FASHION(INDIA) LIMITED, 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

NASH FASHION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

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

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

transferred and no possession was given. Hence there was no sale of flats. There was only booking of flats in advance. The person who made the advance payment against purchase of property deduct TDS as per provision of section 192(IA) of the Act. So the amount received on which TDS was deducted is shown in advance received