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 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, 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\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. 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

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

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

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

M/S DEEPS SPECIAL STEELS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR

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

transferred 16 AnilNand Kishore Goyalvs.ACIT-ITA Nos. 132-176 from one side to 1256/PN/2012 (Pune Tribunal) another, addition 17 CIT vs. Jamna Devi Agrawal [2012] 20 taxmann.com 177-180 179 cannot be 529 (Bom HC) sustained 18 Commissioner of Income-tax v. Smt. Sumitra Devi Transaction 181-185 184 [2014] 49 taxmann.com 37 could not be rejected 19 Shri Dolarrai

MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , KOTA

transferred, they\nwere still lying in the name of assessee much after the sale to M/s S.K.\nSharma & Co. (The impugned shares ceased to exist in the demat account of\nthe assessee post sale) The only positive aspect was the receipt of sale\nconsideration through cheques. It was under these circumstances that the\nHon'ble Tribunal made the observations quoted

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

transferred, they were still lying in the name of assessee much after the sale to M/s S.K. Sharma & Co. (The impugned shares ceased to exist in the demat account of the assessee post sale) The only positive aspect was the receipt of sale consideration through cheques. It was under these circumstances that the Hon’ble Tribunal made the observations quoted

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

transferred, they were still lying in the name of assessee much\nafter the sale to M/s S.K. Sharma & Co. (The impugned shares ceased to exist in the demat\naccount of the assessee post sale) The only positive aspect was the receipt of sale\nconsideration through cheques. It was under these circumstances that the Hon'ble Tribunal\nmade the observations quoted

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

price. A loss is obviously created. Illustration X wants a manufactured loss of Rs 100 to reduce taxable income. While Y wants to launder Rs 100 untaxed money. A broker puts X and Y on the opposite SIDE of a series of trades in some options contracts that is in effect substance less. The trades will be matched such that

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

dividend Income has\nbeen received and no profit from firm has been received.\n5.2. That the Id. PCIT has held that actual earning of exempt income is not\nnecessary and has relied upon Circular No. 5/2014 and has further relied upon\namendment made by Finance Act, 2022 whereby Explanation has been\ninserted to justify the disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

deemed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961 without considering the facts of the case?\n3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was right in ignoring the fact that the assessee was involved in dealing of purchase and sale of shares in the scrip of Eins

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)

deemed sufficient. It is crucial that the assessing officer's belief is fair and not based on extraneous or fallacious reasoning. 1.4. Before issuing a notice under Section 148, the assessing officer must apply their reasoning skills to draw conclusions from new or existing information. The term "reason to believe" refers to the belief that prompts the assessing officer

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

deemed\nfit. In response to the above referred notice(s), Ld. AR of the\nassessee attended the hearings. The information furnished by the\nassessee was examined and placed on record.\n4.2 On perusal of the profit and loss account the Id. AO noted the\nassessee has offered net interest income amounting to Rs. 72,343.\nThe Id. AO asked