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 in terms of Sec. 92F(ii), keeping in mind, that in case of the Appellant, (1) it has incurred huge capex, for setting up the power undertaking exclusively for the CMUs and (2) it provides un- interrupted power to CMUs. Alternatively, 15% markup may be allowed for each of the aforesaid advantages to the actual user

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 in terms of Sec. 92F(ii), keeping in mind, that in case of the Appellant, (1) it has incurred huge capex, for setting up the power undertaking exclusively for the CMUs and (2) it provides un- interrupted power to CMUs. Alternatively, 15% markup may be allowed for each of the aforesaid advantages to the actual user

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

transfer price of power in\nterms of Sec. 92F(ii), keeping in mind, that in case of the\nAppellant, (1) it has incurred huge capex, for setting up the power\nundertaking exclusively for the CMUs and (2) it provides un\ninterrupted power to CMUs. Alternatively, 15% markup may be\nallowed for each of the aforesaid advantages to the actual user

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

transfer price of power in \nterms of Sec. 92F(ii), keeping in mind, that in case of the \nAppellant, (1) it has incurred huge capex, for setting up the power \nundertaking exclusively for the CMUs and (2) it provides un \ninterrupted power to CMUs. Alternatively, 15% markup may be \nallowed for each of the aforesaid advantages to the actual user

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 Pricing. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) NFAC Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 62,34,41,568/- on account of sales tax subsidy and electricity duty exemptions

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)

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. c) Allowability of depreciation on leasehold rights on land u/s 32(1)(ii). That the department is in further appeal against the composite order of Hon'ble ITAT in appeal

M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,E-8, EPIP RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

SHRI RUPAL JAIAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Appeal.

exemption under section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 as under :- Name of company Sale price Purchase price Transfer

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)

transfer price is appropriate. It may be mentioned that as pointed out by the appellant, the extinguishment of investments in CTL, owing to its merger with CVL, is not covered under the exceptions provided in section 47 of the Act. Section 47(vii), which exempts

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)

transfer price is appropriate. It may be mentioned that as pointed out by the appellant, the extinguishment of investments in CTL, owing to its merger with CVL, is not covered under the exceptions provided in section 47 of the Act. Section 47(vii), which exempts

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)

transfer price is appropriate. It may be mentioned that as pointed out by the appellant, the extinguishment of investments in CTL, owing to its merger with CVL, is not covered under the exceptions provided in section 47 of the Act. Section 47(vii), which exempts

KANTA AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

exemption under section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 from bogus scrip transactions during the year as under :- Name of Sale price Purchase price Transfer

KANTA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

exemption under section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 from bogus scrip transactions during the year as under :- Name of Sale price Purchase price Transfer

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

exemption for the Indian shareholder,\ncapital gains on transfer of shares of CFCL Technologies is taxable in the\nhands of Chambal Fertilisers. Consequently, capital loss (if any) is also to\nbe allowed in the hands of Chambal Fertilisers.\"\nThat is how, the Assessing Officer withdrew short capital loss of Rs.\n3, 91, 92, 69,355/-.\n030\nITA

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

exemption for the Indian shareholder,\ncapital gains on transfer of shares of CFCL Technologies is taxable in the\nhands of Chambal Fertilisers. Consequently, capital loss (if any) is also to\nbe allowed in the hands of Chambal Fertilisers.\"\nThat is how, the Assessing Officer withdrew short capital loss of Rs.\n3, 91, 92, 69,355/-.\n030\nITA

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

transfer pricing audit has certified that the particulars given in the Annexure of Form 3CEB are true and correct. 8.4 On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT has erred in holding that there was a deliberate attempt of the appellant of non-disclosure by not filing Balance sheet in VAT15BS and Profit & loss account

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

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transfer of property in the goods, and a price. 'Price' was further defined under section 2(10) of the Sale of Goods Act to mean 'money consideration for a sale ofgoods. Thus, in a contract of sale, payment of price in money is an essential part. The word 'money' has not been defined under the said Act, but the most