RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess), without allowing any deduction for any expenditure or allowance. Sandeep Sethi & Ors. C.2. Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 115BBE were substituted by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

68, Section 69, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess), without allowing any deduction for any expenditure or allowance. Sandeep Sethi & Ors. C.2. Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 115BBE were substituted by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment

ANATOLE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68, Section 69, Section 69A,\nITA NO. 1082/JP/2024\nANATOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD VS ACIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR\nSection 69B, Section 69C or Section 69D, at the rate of 30% (plus surcharge and cess),\nwithout allowing any deduction for any expenditure or allowance.\nA.2 Thereafter, the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 115BBE were

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

68,40,099/-. Therefore, the initiation and imposing of penalty proceedings is wrong, bad in law, invalid and void ab initio. 17. It was submitted that it is a settled law position on the issue that the notice u/s 271(1)(c) should be specific on imposing of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 i.e. concealed particulars

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

68,40,099/-. Therefore, the initiation and imposing of penalty proceedings is wrong, bad in law, invalid and void ab initio. 17. It was submitted that it is a settled law position on the issue that the notice u/s 271(1)(c) should be specific on imposing of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 i.e. concealed particulars

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. M/S JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

68,461.30. Accordingly, the TPO has proposed the total adjustment U/s 92CA of Rs. 2,60,74,702/-. 4. The assessee challenged the action of the TPO/A.O. before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has accepted the method applied by the assessee for benchmarking of international transaction and held that the price of DCIT Vs. M/s Jaipur Rugs

JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

68,461.30. Accordingly, the TPO has proposed the total adjustment U/s 92CA of Rs. 2,60,74,702/-. 4. The assessee challenged the action of the TPO/A.O. before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has accepted the method applied by the assessee for benchmarking of international transaction and held that the price of DCIT Vs. M/s Jaipur Rugs

JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

68,461.30. Accordingly, the TPO has proposed the total adjustment U/s 92CA of Rs. 2,60,74,702/-. 4. The assessee challenged the action of the TPO/A.O. before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has accepted the method applied by the assessee for benchmarking of international transaction and held that the price of DCIT Vs. M/s Jaipur Rugs

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

68,461.30. Accordingly, the TPO has proposed the total adjustment U/s 92CA of Rs. 2,60,74,702/-. 4. The assessee challenged the action of the TPO/A.O. before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has accepted the method applied by the assessee for benchmarking of international transaction and held that the price of DCIT Vs. M/s Jaipur Rugs

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

68,509/- without \nconsidering that the due date for depositing PF was a public holiday.\nV. Addition on account of distributed income of Buy Back:\n1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has erred in invoking \nSection 115QA of the Act and further erred by charging additional tax of distributed \nincome in relation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

92B clause (1) and reference made to TPO u/s 92CA is invalid and bad in law. Therefore, the consequential order passed by the TPO and DRP is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. Additional ground is accordingly allowed. (xii) Similar view was taken by ITAT Ahmedabad in case of Ammann India Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT Mehsana

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

92B clause (1) and reference made to TPO u/s 92CA is invalid and bad in law. Therefore, the consequential order passed by the TPO and DRP is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. Additional ground is accordingly allowed. (xii) Similar view was taken by ITAT Ahmedabad in case of Ammann India Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT Mehsana