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

income, acceptance or non-acceptance of addition, and confirmation or deletion of addition in quantum proceedings. In fact, it is the evaluation of the circumstances leading to the surrender/addition or confirmation of addition, which decides the fate of penalty. Where a surrender or an addition is made due to absence of Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT bona fide

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

income, acceptance or non-acceptance of addition, and confirmation or deletion of addition in quantum proceedings. In fact, it is the evaluation of the circumstances leading to the surrender/addition or confirmation of addition, which decides the fate of penalty. Where a surrender or an addition is made due to absence of Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT bona fide

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

transfer price of water (Rs.3/ltr) for captive consumption. The price has been determined on the basis of a quotation obtained from Bisleri International Private Limited for Rs. 3.50 per/ltr and making necessary adjustment in the said quotation and considering the stand taken by the department in earlier year. TPO rejected the bench marking analysis conducted by the assessee and substituted

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

transfer power directly to the ultimate industrial consumer i.e. the manufacturing units of assessee.\n30.13. Further, the aspect as to why rate at which power is sold to 3rd parties including Power distribution companies should not be considered as internal CUP and hence considered for computing arm's length price under the Transfer Pricing regulations, needs to be dealt with

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.

transfer price of water (Rs.3/ltr) for captive consumption. The price has been determined on the basis of a quotation obtained from Bisleri International Private Limited for Rs. 3.50 per/ltr and making necessary adjustment in the said quotation and considering the stand taken by the department in earlier year. TPO rejected the bench marking analysis conducted by the assessee and substituted

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.

transfer price of water (Rs.3/ltr) for captive consumption. The price has been determined on the basis of a quotation obtained from Bisleri International Private Limited for Rs. 3.50 per/ltr and making necessary adjustment in the said quotation and considering the stand taken by the department in earlier year. TPO rejected the bench marking analysis conducted by the assessee and substituted

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

additional grounds, mentioned as below: a) Inclusion of Reliability Charge while computing Transfer Price for Power undertaking u/s 80IA b) Claim of deduction u's 80IA on eligible Solid Waste Management System as per Form 10CCB filed alongwith return of income

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

transfer is not took place this advance receipt is not chargeable to tax under the Act. Now, we have to see that the law permits to receive the money in advance or not? The receipt of money in cash w.e.f. 01.06.2015 considered as specified sum under the provision of section 269SS of the act and since, the money has been

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

transfer is not took place this advance receipt is not chargeable to tax under the Act. Now, we have to see that the law permits to receive the money in advance or not? The receipt of money in cash w.e.f. 01.06.2015 considered as specified sum under the provision of section 269SS of the act and since, the money has been

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

transfer is not took place this advance receipt is not chargeable to tax under the Act. Now, we have to see that the law permits to receive the money in advance or not? The receipt of money in cash w.e.f. 01.06.2015 considered as specified sum under the provision of section 269SS of the act and since, the money has been

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

transfer is not took place this advance receipt is not chargeable to tax under the Act. Now, we have to see that the law permits to receive the money in advance or not? The receipt of money in cash w.e.f. 01.06.2015 considered as specified sum under the provision of section 269SS of the act and since, the money has been

ZARI SILK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the [Joint] Commissioner under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the [Joint] Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders

ARUN PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL),, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Income-tax Officer on the basis of the directions issued by the [Joint] Commissioner under section 144A; (ii) an order made by the [Joint] Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders

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)

Income Tax Act without any saving clause therefore the natural corollary would be that it did not exist at all in the statute book. Accordingly, we allow the additional ground of appeal and hold that the impugned transfer pricing

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)

Income Tax Act without any saving clause therefore the natural corollary would be that it did not exist at all in the statute book. Accordingly, we allow the additional ground of appeal and hold that the impugned transfer pricing

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

transfer price of water (Rs.3/ltr) for captive\nconsumption. The price has been determined on the basis of a\nquotation obtained from Bisleri International Private Limited for Rs.\n3.50 per/ltr and making necessary adjustment in the said quotation\nand considering the stand taken by the department in earlier year.\nTPO rejected the bench marking analysis conducted by the\nassessee and substituted

MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

addition on the issue as well. 8. Per contra, ld. DR representing the revenue has relied upon the finding recorded in the order of the ld. PCIT and prayed to uphold the order of the PCIT. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The bench noted that the assessee has challenged the order

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

addition can be made. The case titling ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2007) 161 taxmann.com 316 (SC) was also referred by ld. D/R wherein it was held that even after processing under section 143(1), notice under section 143(2) can be issued and also notice under section 147 of the IT Act can also be issued

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

transfer price of water (Rs.3/ltr) for captive \nconsumption. The price has been determined on the basis of a \nquotation obtained from Bisleri International Private Limited for Rs. \n3.50 per/ltr and making necessary adjustment in the said quotation \nand considering the stand taken by the department in earlier year.\nTPO rejected the bench marking analysis conducted by the \nassessee and substituted