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

penalty proceedings, the same were initiated by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act wherein the AO has made transfer pricing

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

penalty proceedings, the same were initiated by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment proceedings U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act wherein the AO has made transfer pricing

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)

price paid for acquiring the rights of land and not the land itself and the ownership of the land vests with the lessor of Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. the land. The lessee is liable to return the land to its original owner after the expiry of the lease and does not have ownership rights over the land. On such facts

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 of Power for the purpose of deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act. 15.1 The facts as placed by the appellant are that during the year the appellant had claimed deduction u/s 80-IA in respect of its power undertakings. The assessee – appellant filed Form No. 10CCB certifying the claim of deduction u/s 80IA was on record along

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

transfer pricing guidelines. \nIn doing so, the ld. TPO, Ld. AO and the Hon’ble DRP also failed to appreciate that \nBerry ratio is applied only in specific circumstances i.e. low risk procurement and \ndistributors. Additionally, the ld. AO has erred in applying 'Berry Ratio' even when \nin appellant’s own case. Berry Ratio was rejected

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

transfer pricing guidelines. \nIn doing so, the ld. TPO, Ld. AO and the Hon’ble DRP also failed to appreciate that \nBerry ratio is applied only in specific circumstances i.e. low risk procurement and \ndistributors. Additionally, the ld. AO has erred in applying ‘Berry Ratio’ even when \nin appellant’s own case. Berry Ratio was rejected

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Transfer Pricing officer u/s 92CA(3) for determination of arms length price of international tax transactions entered into by the assessee during the FY 2010-11 relevant to AY 2011-12. The TPO passed the order u/s 92CA(3) on 08.01.2015 wherein DCIT, Jaipur vs. M/s Jaipur Rugs Company (P) Ltd., Jaipur he has proposed an adjustment to the tune

MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 272A(1)(d) of IT Act, 1961. As is evident from the issue of notice by ld. AO he called for all the details considering those documents having incriminating in nature. He has dealt with all the three transactions with Shri Uchab Lal, Shri Mukut Bihari and Shri Babu Khan. 31 Mujmmeel vs. ACIT Since the order

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

penalties also, for which specific provisions are made in the Provident Fund Act as well as the ESI Act. Therefore, the Act permits the employer to make the deposit with some delays, subject to the aforesaid consequences. Insofar as the Income-tax Act is concerned, the assessee can get the benefit if the actual payment is made before the return

M/S CENTURY INFRA POWER P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer u/s 92CA(3) for determination of Arms Length Price in respect of domestic transactions with Associated Enterprises during the Financial Year 2013-14 relevant to impugned assessment year 2014-15. 3. The TPO passed the order u/s 92CA(3) on 30.06.2017 wherein he has proposed an adjustment of Rs. 1,31,425/- to the income

MIKUNI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT,

12. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in this appeal, when the assessment order dated 27

Bench: passing the impugned order, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee, as Learned PCIT found that the Assessing Officer, while framing the above said assessment and the making addition, did not initiate penalty proceedings 270A of the Act. Learned PCIT was of the view that penalty proceedings were to be initiated under the said provision on account of misreporting of income, which came to be added by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee company. It being a Transfer Pri

Transfer Pricing adjustment amounting to Rs. 6,44,86,098/-. 3. Before passing the impugned order, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee, as Learned PCIT found that the Assessing Officer, while framing the above said assessment and the making addition, did not initiate penalty

M/S. JHANDEWALA FOODS LIMITED 35, JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground no

Transfer Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any foreign company. 15. The scheme of section 144C is unambiguous and sub-section (1) of section 144C clearly provides for issuance of a draft order which is a sine qua non before the Assessing Officer can pass a regular assessment order

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)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are also initiated against the assessee since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction on account of interest paid on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.” o13 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

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)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are also initiated against the assessee since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction on account of interest paid on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.” o13 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

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)

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are also initiated against the assessee since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction on account of interest paid on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.” o13 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

GUNMALA JAIN,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1262/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears :2019-20 Gunmala Jain, बनाम 28 Abhi Lash Nikunj, Kalyan Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2) Colony, Ajmer Road Kekri, Ajmer स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./ PAN/GIR No.: ABRPJ 4764E Ajmer अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assesseeby :Sh. Sunil Porwal, CA (Thr.V.C.) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary (Addl. CIT) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18/1

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. ……………………………………………. Sub-Section (7) prescribes levy of penalty

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are also\ninitiated against the assessee since I am satisfied that the assessee has\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction on\naccount of interest paid on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.\n013\nITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024\nChambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are also\ninitiated against the assessee since I am satisfied that the assessee has\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction on\naccount of interest paid on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.\n013\nITA No. 1090, 1097 ΤΟ 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024\nChambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

MANISH GOVIND DANGI,UDIAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE (INTL.TAX), JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

transfer pricing adjustments (ALP-adjustments) and as a result there will not be correct determination of tax liability of the assessee company. Therefore, we have to admit these additional evidences. In the light of the facts and circumstances, as explained above, and in the interest of justice and fair play, we admit these additional evidences (relating to working capital adjustments