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.

price for the purpose of Section 80A(6) of the Act. 30.11. The ld. D/R in his submissions relied strongly on the order of TPO and the method adopted by TPO for determining market rate of power. According to ld. D/R, TPO has adopted the rate of power at which Distribution companies purchase power from the Generating companies. We find

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.

price for the purpose of Section 80A(6) of the Act. 30.11. The ld. D/R in his submissions relied strongly on the order of TPO and the method adopted by TPO for determining market rate of power. According to ld. D/R, TPO has adopted the rate of power at which Distribution companies purchase power from the Generating companies. We find

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)

carry forward of losses for the first time. Supreme Court itself at para9 of the order has held that the assessee can file a revised return in a case where there is an omission or a wrong statement. (b) In the case at hand the issue involved is determination of Arms’ Length Price (or transfer

SUMIT GOEL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

forward losses. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the ld. Assessing Officer the assessee has preferred anappeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed all the additions made by the ld. AO observing as under:- “23. In view of the facts and circumstances borne out of the assessment order and legal precedents as discussed above

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

price for the\npurpose of Section 80A(6) of the Act.\n30.11. The ld. D/R in his submissions relied strongly on the order\nof TPO and the method adopted by TPO for determining market\nrate of power. According to ld. D/R, TPO has adopted the rate of\npower at which Distribution companies purchase power from the\nGenerating companies. We find

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

losses. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) refuted the appellant's contention that the order passed by SEBI is arbitrary because the order states-it is not possible to quantify the amount of disproportionate gain or unfair advantage made by the appellant. He further mentioned that this contention is also not maintainable because firstly an offence which is not quantifiable does

RAHUL KASLIWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

carry forward of the capital loss nor had any capital profits for the year against which he could have set off the impugned loss. So the theory of claiming bogus short term capital loss falls flat. Here, we have a case in hand, wherein only on the basis of transacting in the name of the scrip (SMIL), tax liability

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)

loss account, will not be increased by the amount of wealth-tax paid because under clause (a) of theExplanation to section 115J(1A), what is contemplated is the amount of income-tax paid. Under the saidclause, payment of wealth-tax is not contemplated. Therefore, the net profit shall not be increased by theamount of wealth-tax paid by the assessee

NEERU MOHAN NAGPAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD 2(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

carried forward\nto next year as Capital Loss. The assessee in the two grounds of appeal\nchallenged the action of the lower authority in not granting the loss of\nRs. 38,58,099/-.\n10.\nThe fact related to the claim of the loss is that the assessee made an\nagreement on 13.04.2007 for purchase of unit

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

carried 361,43,40,689/- forward When the Assessing Officer questioned the assessee company regarding short term capital loss, it submitted following reply:- o25 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota “"During the year, CFCL Technologies Limited, Cayman Islands, a subsidiary of the Company, merged with its wholly owned subsidiary CFCL Ventures Limited, Cayman

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

carried 361,43,40,689/- forward When the Assessing Officer questioned the assessee company regarding short term capital loss, it submitted following reply:- o25 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota “"During the year, CFCL Technologies Limited, Cayman Islands, a subsidiary of the Company, merged with its wholly owned subsidiary CFCL Ventures Limited, Cayman

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

carried 361,43,40,689/- forward When the Assessing Officer questioned the assessee company regarding short term capital loss, it submitted following reply:- o25 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota “"During the year, CFCL Technologies Limited, Cayman Islands, a subsidiary of the Company, merged with its wholly owned subsidiary CFCL Ventures Limited, Cayman

SPECTRUM FOODS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transferring trade profits and losses from one client to another client account by amending client codes in ‘Future and Option' segment in NSE under the pretence of correcting errors. The gain or loss book entries were then employed to evade tax. The letter stated that many persons utilized losses generated by unscrupulous brokers through mala fide modification of client codes

ANUSHA FINVEST PVT LTD ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

transferred whiting of profits and lost on analysis it has been found that there is unilateral flow of profits and losses consequent to CCMS. In the case of the assessee the trend of client code modification is clearly visible. The assessing the modified client has shifted in losses in order to set off the profits that were determined during

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

carried forward losses to be setoff with the income of the assessee. Therefore the whole issue is covered by the decision of the Honorable ITAT Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in its own cases. Specially when the revenue has not preferred any appeal against the order of the Honorable ITAT. Therefore all the grounds including this ground are squarely covered

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

forward beyond the tenth previous year as reckoned from the year of commercial production. (5) For the purposes of this section,— (a) "operation relating to prospecting" means any operation undertaken for the purposes of exploring, locating or proving deposits of any mineral, and includes any such operation which proves to be infructuous or abortive; (b) "year of commercial production" means

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

forward beyond the tenth previous year as reckoned from the year of commercial production. (5) For the purposes of this section,— (a) "operation relating to prospecting" means any operation undertaken for the purposes of exploring, locating or proving deposits of any mineral, and includes any such operation which proves to be infructuous or abortive; (b) "year of commercial production" means

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

forward beyond the tenth previous year as reckoned from the year of commercial production. (5) For the purposes of this section,— (a) "operation relating to prospecting" means any operation undertaken for the purposes of exploring, locating or proving deposits of any mineral, and includes any such operation which proves to be infructuous or abortive; (b) "year of commercial production" means