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

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

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

68,509/- \nTotal Addition \n209,47,46,867/- \n\n12. Aggrieved with the final assessment order, the appellant filed appeal before your Honors. \n\nGrounds of Appeal:\n\nI. General Grounds: \n\n1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. has erred by \ninitiating proceedings and passing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C

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. 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

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

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

144C as invalid and void ab initio which is liable to be quashed since not passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s claim of allowing

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

144C as invalid and void ab initio which is liable to be quashed since not passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act.\n2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s claim of allowing

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

3) r.w.s. 144C as invalid and void ab initio \nwhich is liable to be quashed since not passed in accordance with the \nprovisions of Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act.\n2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. \nCIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s \nclaim

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

144C was passed on 29.12.2023\nand addition of entire amount of sale consideration of Rs.69.90 lacs was made. Hence\nthis appeal\nGOA 1& 2: Action taken u/s 147/148 is completely without jurisdiction on various\ngrounds:\nFacts: The Income Tax Officer ward 2(2), Ajmer initiated the proceedings u/s 148A by\nissuing a show cause notice u/s 148A(b) (PB 68

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

3) r.w.s. 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

3) r.w.s. 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

DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAVITA CHHUGANI, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

144C(3) of the Act after making additions of Rs. 1,32,28,580/- totaling Rs. 1,33,52,760/-. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A), who in turn allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now the department being aggrieved preferred the present appeal before us. 3. We have gone through

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

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)

3) of the Act. 5. Subsequently on perusal of my income tax record, the authorized representative had came to know about the draft order passed u/s 144C(1) of the Act by ITO, Circle (INTL TAX), Jaipur and immediately he had taken the legal opinion from Adv. Rajendra Jain and after discussing the complete facts of the case

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

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

Bench: Ld. Ao.

3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee did not file his ITR for the A.Y. 2018-19. Information in this case was gathered from AIR Information/TAS/26AS details. On the basis of the information gathered a notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2022 for filling