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

section 92C of the Income Tax Act. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the matter was referred by the Assessing officer to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the TPO has adopted the CUP method for determination of arm’s length price and has proposed an adjustment of Rs. 18,65,77,973/- determined as the value

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

3. As per accounting standard 16, paragraph 18 and as per accounting slandered 10, paragraph 20, this treatment of borrowing cost by the company is not permissible. Given the fact that the project has been held up for many years, the company cannot capitalized the interest expense or the borrowing cost. Rather it has to book the borrowing cost / interest

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. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

Section 92C(3) of the Act has not been satisfied. \n\n2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO, Ld. AO and the \nHon’ble DRP erred in rejecting the CPM considered by the appellant as the Most \nAppropriate Method with GP /COP as the PLI, without giving any cogent reason

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)

section 92C(2) which is as under:- Provided further that if the variation between the arm's length price so determined and price at which the [international transaction or M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. specified domestic transaction] has actually been undertaken [does not exceed such percentage not exceeding three per cent of the latter, as may be notified

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)

section 92C(2) which is as under:- Provided further that if the variation between the arm's length price so determined and price at which the [international transaction or M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. specified domestic transaction] has actually been undertaken [does not exceed such percentage not exceeding three per cent of the latter, as may be notified

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

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

92C of the Act read with Rule 1OD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'). 3. On the facts and in law, the Ld. TPO, Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the economic analysis carried out by the Appellant in the Transfer Pricing ('TP') documentation prepared and maintained in compliance with Section

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

68,461/- made by the A.O. on account of interest not charged from AE on outstanding receivables. Not appreciating the fact that the second proviso to Section 92C(2) is not applicable in the instance case, as the A.O. has applied CUP method of determining ARM’S LENGTH PRICE.” 3

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

68,461/- made by the A.O. on account of interest not charged from AE on outstanding receivables. Not appreciating the fact that the second proviso to Section 92C(2) is not applicable in the instance case, as the A.O. has applied CUP method of determining ARM’S LENGTH PRICE.” 3

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

68,461/- made by the A.O. on account of interest not charged from AE on outstanding receivables. Not appreciating the fact that the second proviso to Section 92C(2) is not applicable in the instance case, as the A.O. has applied CUP method of determining ARM’S LENGTH PRICE.” 3

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

68,461/- made by the A.O. on account of interest not charged from AE on outstanding receivables. Not appreciating the fact that the second proviso to Section 92C(2) is not applicable in the instance case, as the A.O. has applied CUP method of determining ARM’S LENGTH PRICE.” 3