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 power. We further, from the facts of the assessee’s case as stated above, where there is both exclusivity (resulting in huge capex for single user) advantage and uninterrupted power supply, we on facts, agree with the assessee’s claim that Rs. 1.50/unit is the minimum reliability surcharge at arm’s length principles. As regards

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

transfer price of power. We further, from the facts of the assessee’s case as stated above, where there is both exclusivity (resulting in huge capex for single user) advantage and uninterrupted power supply, we on facts, agree with the assessee’s claim that Rs. 1.50/unit is the minimum reliability surcharge at arm’s length principles. As regards

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

transfer price of power. We further, from the facts of the assessee’s case as stated above, where there is both exclusivity (resulting in huge capex for single user) advantage and uninterrupted power supply, we on facts, agree with the assessee’s claim that Rs. 1.50/unit is the minimum reliability surcharge at arm’s length principles. As regards

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

transfer price of power. We further, from the facts of the assessee’s case as stated above, where there is both exclusivity (resulting in huge capex for single user) advantage and uninterrupted power supply, we on facts, agree with the assessee’s claim that Rs. 1.50/unit is the minimum reliability surcharge at arm’s length principles. As regards

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

transfer price of power. We further, from the facts of the \nassessee’s case as stated above, where there is both exclusivity \n(resulting in huge capex for single user) advantage and \nuninterrupted power supply, we on facts, agree with the assessee’s \nclaim that Rs. 1.50/unit is the minimum reliability surcharge at \narm’s length principles. As regards

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)

transfer price of power adopted by the assessee in the said case. The Ld. D/R had nothing to defend against the aforesaid contention of the assessee. 8.4 Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the coordinate bench of the Jodhpur Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc (supra), we are of the view that reliability charge @15% of Grid rate

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)

deemed necessary - Rishab Agro Industries Ltd. v. P.N.B. Capital Services Ltd. [2000] 5 SCC 515. The legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by judicial interpretative process 13.8 He also serviced the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Tarulata Shyam -vs.- CIT (1977) 108 ITR 345 (SC) wherein it has been held that: “It is urged that the principle

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion se the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner, - (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

price is considered and rejected as the assessee has issued shares of Rs. 10 face value at a premium of Rs. 190 which by no stretch of imagination appears to be reasonable. iii. The assessee cannot at any time answer the fact that with such financial credentials how can a company or individual Invest such high share application money without

SURYA SINGHAL,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

deemed to be the income of the assessee of such financial\nyear.\"\n9. As it is clear from the above the facts that the assessee's case falls under the\nprovisions of section 69 of the Act, therefore, an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- is being\nadded to the total income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act.\"\n4.2

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

dividends referred to in section 115-0. Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this section, where any interest or other sum as aforesaid is credited to any account, whether called "Interest payable account" or "Suspense account" or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

transfer pricing adjustments. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same since the additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) was allowable only in the first year of purchase. The Dispute Resolution Panel held that the claim of additional depreciation on assets installed during the period 1.10.2008 was allowable and directed allowance of additional depreciation claimed by the assessee under Section

INTEGRAL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us. In This Appeal, The Assessee Bank Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

price is higher than the face value, "the premium should be amortized for the remaining period of maturity of the security". From the above it is clear that the premium has to be amortized for the remaining period of maturity of the security. The learned A.R. fairly conceded that details of such premium splitting over the remaining period

RAMESHWARAM STRONG GLASS (P.) LTD.,AJMER vs. ITO, AJMER

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

deems fit to apply. In the instant case, the assessee company has exercised its option to value its shares as per DCF method and we find that the objection of the AO is primarily directed at not adopting the book value of determination of value of shares as against DCF adopted 14 M/s. Rameshwaram Strong Glass

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

price paid for settling a \ndispute by Shri R.K.Verma. So, there exists a quid-pro-quo in this \ntransaction. In a legal context, it refers to a situation where one party provides \nsomething of value to another party in exchange for something in return. The amount has not been \nreceived without consideration. Consideration is something of value exchanged \nbetween

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

dividend history and other financial parameters to substantiate that there was no term capital loss against receipt of cash money. The Ld. Assessing Officer accordingly concluded that the addition was made on the basis of the material available on record, the surrounding circumstances, the human conduct and preponderance of probabilities. In view of the above facts and circumstances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

dividend history and other financial parameters to substantiate that there was no term capital loss against receipt of cash money. The Ld. Assessing Officer accordingly concluded that the addition was made on the basis of the material available on record, the surrounding circumstances, the human conduct and preponderance of probabilities. In view of the above facts and circumstances

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

transferring the shares to the group concern without any consideration would have requested for extension of time for making the payment of final call money of Rs. 9.90 crores as all these companies are group companies and it was not difficult for them to get the extension of time. Even otherwise when the assessee was holding 77800 bonus shares