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.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

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.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

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)

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

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)

price paid for acquiring the rights of land and not the land itself and the ownership of the land vests with the lessor of 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, courts have held that

ZARI SILK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

108 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Shakti Charities (2000) 160 CTR 107 (Mad.). The facts and submissions are verifiable from the assessment record. The Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Green World Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 (Supreme Court) held that ‘The jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised only when both the following conditions are satisfied (i) the order

ARUN PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL),, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

108 (Bom.) and CIT Vs. Shakti Charities (2000) 160 CTR 107 (Mad.). The facts and submissions are verifiable from the assessment record. The Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Green World Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 (Supreme Court) held that ‘The jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised only when both the following conditions are satisfied (i) the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

price as on 18.06.2015 Rs. 27,89,92,000/- Less:- Cost of acquisition 903892*1081/223= Rs. 43,81,647/- Rs. 87,96,055/- 430619*1081/244= Rs. 19,07,783/- 221058*1081/259= Rs. 9,22,640/- 570000*1081/389= Rs. 15,83,985/- Long term capital gain Rs. 27,01,95,945/- From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

price as on 18.06.2015 Rs. 27,89,92,000/- Less:- Cost of acquisition 903892*1081/223= Rs. 43,81,647/- Rs. 87,96,055/- 430619*1081/244= Rs. 19,07,783/- 221058*1081/259= Rs. 9,22,640/- 570000*1081/389= Rs. 15,83,985/- Long term capital gain Rs. 27,01,95,945/- From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

price as on 18.06.2015 Rs. 27,89,92,000/- Less:- Cost of acquisition 903892*1081/223= Rs. 43,81,647/- Rs. 87,96,055/- 430619*1081/244= Rs. 19,07,783/- 221058*1081/259= Rs. 9,22,640/- 570000*1081/389= Rs. 15,83,985/- Long term capital gain Rs. 27,01,95,945/- From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

price as on 18.06.2015 Rs. 27,89,92,000/- Less:- Cost of acquisition 903892*1081/223= Rs. 43,81,647/- Rs. 87,96,055/- 430619*1081/244= Rs. 19,07,783/- 221058*1081/259= Rs. 9,22,640/- 570000*1081/389= Rs. 15,83,985/- Long term capital gain Rs. 27,01,95,945/- From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee

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)

price', is ab- initio void as per the provisions of sec.23of the Contracts Act, 1872 and thus non- est in the eyes of law. Hence, such SBNs cannot be treated as having arisen out of a contract for sale…….” It is held by the Hon'ble ITAT as under:- “70. From the reading of the above notification, it is abundantly

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

section 54 of the Act." The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Jaipur in the case of Income Tax Office vs. Rajkumar Parashar (2018) 195 TTJ (Jp) 212(DPB 10-17) it was held as: “Where the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

transfer of shares from a resident to a non-resident”, whereas, in the present case, the shares were freshly issued by the assessee company. • As per the relevant regulations concerning the Any company engaged in the business of Real Foreign Direct Investment, any company Estate Development which is engaged in development of cannot issue shares and townships, construction of residential

NITIN KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

price of each plot is mentioned. From verification of these papers your honour will find that all the plots were sold at similar rate irrespective of fact that whether sales consideration realized in cash or through cheque. 10. We further observe with respect to page 1 to 3 the word “remitted (bank)” and “remitted (cash)” and “Total remitted” has been

M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

price of each plot is mentioned. From verification of these papers your honour will find that all the plots were sold at similar rate irrespective of fact that whether sales consideration realized in cash or through cheque. 10. We further observe with respect to page 1 to 3 the word “remitted (bank)” and “remitted (cash)” and “Total remitted” has been

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

price of each plot is mentioned. From verification of these papers your honour will find that all the plots were sold at similar rate irrespective of fact that whether sales consideration realized in cash or through cheque. 10. We further observe with respect to page 1 to 3 the word “remitted (bank)” and “remitted (cash)” and “Total remitted” has been

HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price and not the building and therefore, ld. AO has appreciated these facts and considered this aspect and when two view are possible, a plausible view cannot be a subjected matter of 263. The interest is capitalized and considered in the books of account audited year by year and allowed by the department and auditor as rightly capitalized. The same

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