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.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

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

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

Capital Gain” (Deemed total income u/s. 115JB is Rs. 4,84,39,49,080/-). The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny\nunder the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following flagged issues:-\nSr. No.\nIssues\ni.\nii.\niii.\niv.\nv.\nvi.\nvii.\nviii.\nix.\nx.\nxi.\nxii.\nxiii.\nStock valuation\nIncome/Capital Gain on sale of land or building\nOutward Foreign

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

7,68,18,310/- against the return of income of Rs.\n7,42,23,910/- and thereby the assessment was completed, considering the\nprovisions of section 144 of the Act on 12.04.2021.\n4. On culmination of the assessment proceeding the Id. PCIT(Central),\nJaipur called for the assessment record for examination, and while doing so\nshe noted that the assessment

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)

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

Capital Gain” (Deemed total income u/s. 115JB is \nRs. 4,84,39,49,080/-). The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny\nunder the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following flagged \nissues:-\nSr. No.\nIssues\ni.\nii.\niii.\niv.\nv.\nvi.\nvii.\nviii.\nix.\nx.\nx1.\nxii.\nxiii.\nStock valuation\nIncome/Capital Gain on sale of land or building\nOutward Foreign

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

gains (which in this case are shares). We do\nnot know which shares have been transacted and with whom has the\ntransaction taken place. There are absolutely no details available and the\ninformation supplied is extremely scanty and vague. In so far as the basis for\nthe reasons is concerned, even this is absent. The Assessing Officer did not\nverify

AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, ALWAR

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

7. 3. In this context, it is seen that the issue on which addition has been made by the AO\npertains to F.Y. 2009-10 during which the amalgamating company was in existence. The\nprocess of amalgamation is different from winding up of a corporate entity due to the fact\nthat the corporate venture still exists as an amalgamated entity

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER vs. WONDER CEMENT LTD, MADANGANJ-KISHANGARH

In the result Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

801A(8) when a basket market value is available, it is the discretion of the assessee to adopt any one of these as market 4 value without appreciating that for comparability under CUP, there needs to be strict comparability of economic factors in transactions and such comparison renders the market value taken by the assessee as non-comparable price since

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

801A, in terms of Sec. 80-1A(8) and 80A(6) r.w.s 92F of the Act, the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the power transferred was determined by considering the Average Annual Landed Cost (AALC) of power sold by the Grid during the year to the assessee and/or similarly placed nearby manufacturing units of independent assessee