VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

2- 4 Jaipur (ITA No. 1033/JP/2016) has cancelled the penalty by holding that: - “3.2 We have heard the rival contention, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. For the sake of clarity the relevant contents of the Assessment order are reproduced as under: -“ “Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is separately as assessee

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

2- 4 Jaipur (ITA No. 1033/JP/2016) has cancelled the penalty by holding that: - “3.2 We have heard the rival contention, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. For the sake of clarity the relevant contents of the Assessment order are reproduced as under: -“ “Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is separately as assessee

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

92C(2) is not applicable in the instance case, as the AO has applied CUP method for determining ALP.” ITA. No. 46/JP/2017: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT has erred in not appreciating the fact that ld. AO/TPO has not provided DCIT, Jaipur vs. M/s Jaipur Rugs Company (P) Ltd., Jaipur

M/S CENTURY INFRA POWER P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

92C(3) of the Act. 2.2 That the Id. CIT(A) has further erred in not considering the fact that the assessee had paid interest @ 13% on funds borrowed from banks, and thus a payment of interest @15%, which is 2% plus bank- rate, was an acceptable parameter to establish arm's-length rate being considered by the assessee

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

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavvaibhav Global Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम Jaipur. Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacv4679F

u/s 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur for the assessment year 2016-17, wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. On facts and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in assessing the total income