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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

nature is not being pressed in the interest of substantive justice. Hence, the said ground is not being adjudicated. Ground No. 1 of appeal is therefore dismissed. 7. Ground No. 2 relates to rejection of allowability of Reliability charge of Rs. 1.50 per unit in computing Transfer Price

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

nature is not being pressed in the interest of substantive justice. Hence, the said ground is not being adjudicated. Ground No. 1 of appeal is therefore dismissed.\n7. Ground No. 2 relates to rejection of allowability of Reliability charge of Rs. 1.50 per unit in computing Transfer Price

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.

nature is not being pressed in the interest of substantive justice. Hence, the said ground is not being adjudicated. Ground No. 1 of appeal is therefore dismissed. 7. Ground No. 2 relates to rejection of allowability of Reliability charge of Rs. 1.50 per unit in computing Transfer Price

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.

nature is not being pressed in the interest of substantive justice. Hence, the said ground is not being adjudicated. Ground No. 1 of appeal is therefore dismissed. 7. Ground No. 2 relates to rejection of allowability of Reliability charge of Rs. 1.50 per unit in computing Transfer Price

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

natural justice is that the assessee should have knowledge of material which is going to be used against him so that he may be able to meet it - 23. M/s Munnalal murlidhar Vs CIT 79 ITR 540 (All) Assessment – Production of Books etc. – Under section 23(2) of 1922 Act assessing officer is bound to give reasonable time and opportunity

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

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

justice. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383. After hearing both the parties, the additional ground being a purely legal ground, the same is being admitted for adjudication. 12. The ld AR submitted that any notice issued under section 274 read

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

justice. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. CIT 229 ITR 383. After hearing both the parties, the additional ground being a purely legal ground, the same is being admitted for adjudication. 12. The ld AR submitted that any notice issued under section 274 read

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

transferred to theAOof theother person on the date ofrecordingofsatisfactionby the commonAO. Since, the Revenue has not producedthesatisfactionnoterecordedby the commonAOin this case, one can only presume thatsatisfactionwasrecordedimmediately prior to the issue of notice under Section 153C of the Act. As per standard practice of the Department the notice u/s 153C is issued immediately after recording of satisfaction. v) Therefore, the whole

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

transferred to theAOof theother person on the date ofrecordingofsatisfactionby the commonAO. Since, the Revenue has not producedthesatisfactionnoterecordedby the commonAOin this case, one can only presume thatsatisfactionwasrecordedimmediately prior to the issue of notice under Section 153C of the Act. As per standard practice of the Department the notice u/s 153C is issued immediately after recording of satisfaction. v) Therefore, the whole

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

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section 144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section 144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section 144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section 144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3)\nof section 92CA; and\n(ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company:\n11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section\n144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed\nassessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, KOTA

prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross- examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them”. ii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ashwani Gupta, 2010 322 ITR 396 (Del); The Delhi High Court held that once there is a violation

M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross- examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them”. ii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ashwani Gupta, 2010 322 ITR 396 (Del); The Delhi High Court held that once there is a violation