INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

68 of the Act. The facts of the case as stated above are similar to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Kailash Jewellery House (ITA No.613/2010). In the facts of above case, a cash of Rs. 24,58,400/- was deposited in bank account by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made the addition

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. \n\nITA Nos.1144 &1486/JP/2024 \nVaibhav Global Limited vs. DCIT \n3 The Ld. TPO and Hon'ble DRP has erred on facts and in law in proposing an \nadjustment of amount of Rs.136,31,75,249/- to the income of the appellant on \naccount of alleged difference in Arm's Length Price

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

section 144C(13) of the Act was passed by the Assessing officer on 13.11.2019 wherein adjustment on account of transfer pricing as proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer was made and the assessed income was determined at Rs.57,36,47,429/-. 3. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel and after

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)

Section 263 of the Act. (e) issuing the notice u/s 263 by broadly looking at financial statements, ITR, Tax Audit report, Form 10CCB etc. without conducting any enquiry or verification of its own to hold that assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) is unsustainable in law. (f) not pointing out any discrepancy or incorrectness

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

144C of the I.T. Act wherein the AO has made transfer pricing adjustment/addition of Rs. 18,68,02,513/-and has Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT stated that penalty U/s 271(1)(c) is leviable in accordance with explanation 7. Then, towards the end of assessment order, it has been stated that penalty proceedings

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

144C of the I.T. Act wherein the AO has made transfer pricing adjustment/addition of Rs. 18,68,02,513/-and has Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT stated that penalty U/s 271(1)(c) is leviable in accordance with explanation 7. Then, towards the end of assessment order, it has been stated that penalty proceedings

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)

144C read with section 143(3) of the Act on 23.02.2018 by making various disallowances/additions to the returned income of the assessee as under :- - Reduction in claim u/s 80IA on power undertakings on account of transfer pricing adjustment of power (Rs. 2,89,07,63,321/-, - Reduction in claim u/s 80IA on Solid Waste Management System on account

SUNIL KUMAR NAYAK,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Ld. Ao.

68,510 [Highest rate of BTS on 31.03.2018 being Rs. 7207.85 and conversion rate of US$ being Rs. 65]. That, complete bank statement of the assessee held with various banks were duly submitted before Ld. AO, the statemnents clearly showed the actual amount invested in crypto currency as also the amount received by the assessee at the end from such

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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

68,82,173/-. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to Ground No. 1, 2 & 3 above, the Ld. Pr. CIT was not justified and grossly erred in directing AO to examine the issue of taxability of Excise duty exemption of Rs. 100,11,40,737/- & Deferred Sales Tax subsidy

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

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.

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

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

144C(1) of the Act issued with reference to 263 order which was passed on 28.03.2024. 6. Further the legal counsel had advised to the authorized representative that order passed u/s 263 of the Act is contrary to provision of law and also to be challenged before the Hon’ble ITAT Bench as such facts had been communicated

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

144C passed by Ld. AO as invalid and void ab initio since it was not passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act. 6.1 In support of the ground so taken the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the said ground being technical in nature is not being pressed

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

68,58,639/-\n5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals), was not justified and erred in law in not considering incentives amounting to Rs. 6,20,91,72,703/- granted to the appellant as capital receipt which are not exigible to tax while computing total income under normal provisions

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

68,58,639/-\n5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT \n(Appeals), was not justified and erred in law in not considering \nincentives amounting to Rs. 6,20,91,72,703/- granted to the appellant \nas capital receipt which are not exigible to tax while computing total \nincome under normal provisions