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

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

transfer pricing adjustment/addition of Rs. 18,68,02,513/-and has Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT stated that penalty U/s 271(1)(c) is leviable in accordance with explanation 7. Then, towards the end of assessment order, it has been stated that penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately. 7. In the penalty order dated

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

transfer pricing adjustment/addition of Rs. 18,68,02,513/-and has Vaibhav Global Ltd. vs. ACIT stated that penalty U/s 271(1)(c) is leviable in accordance with explanation 7. Then, towards the end of assessment order, it has been stated that penalty proceedings U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately. 7. In the penalty order dated

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)

111 of CLPB] has held that as per sub-section (5) of Sec. 115JB, the application of other provisions are open, except if specifically barred by the section itself. Hence, considering the said provision, it has been held that since there is no provision in the Act to prevent the assessee from claiming indexed cost of acquisition on the sale

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER vs. WONDER CEMENT LTD, MADANGANJ-KISHANGARH

In the result Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

transfer of electricity by power producers to third party customers cannot be treated as arm's length price as it is a price under controlled conditions. 15. Decisions in favour of the Appellant supporting the ALP determination made by the Appellant: Following decisions are in favour of the Appellant • CIT vs. Jindal Steel & Power Limited

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

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)

111 - Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. – [2012] 28 taxmann.com 273 (Delhi) - Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma – [2010] 194 Taxman 504 (Delhi) Lack of enquiry/no enquiry is different from inadequate enquiry and it is only in case of no enquiry by the AO, Pr. CIT/CIT

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)

111 - Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. – [2012] 28 taxmann.com 273 (Delhi) - Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma – [2010] 194 Taxman 504 (Delhi) Lack of enquiry/no enquiry is different from inadequate enquiry and it is only in case of no enquiry by the AO, Pr. CIT/CIT

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

111 ITR 326 (ALL.) • 19. In light of the above, the Appellant humbly submits that during the assessment proceedings, various notices were issued including notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 07.11.2019 was issued by the Ld. AO specifically asking for information in order to verify the disallowance made by the Appellant u/s 14A of the Act and reasons

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

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

Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alone should not be the basis, for arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. If the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961, have to be conferred with the power, to be exercised, solely on the basis of a statement, then it may lead to an arbitrary exercise of such

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

Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alone should not be the basis, for arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. If the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961, have to be conferred with the power, to be exercised, solely on the basis of a statement, then it may lead to an arbitrary exercise of such

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

Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alone should not be the basis, for arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. If the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961, have to be conferred with the power, to be exercised, solely on the basis of a statement, then it may lead to an arbitrary exercise of such

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

transferred from the lenders' respective bank accounts,\nwhich is a significant factor in establishing their capacity to lend.\n\n13.2 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Gopal Krishan v. ACIT, ITA\nNo. 892/JP/2019, underscores this principle by affirming that when the source of\nfunds can be traced back to the bank accounts of the lenders, the onus of\nproving

ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment [or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in which order under section 250 or section 254 or section

RITIKA VEGETABLE OIL PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Against The Order Dated 21.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, By Acit, Central Circle, Alwar [ For Short Ao].

section 40A during the year under consideration. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer 2(3)(2), New Delhi passed order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on 31/10/2018 wherein no adverse inference has been drawn in 3 Ritika Vegetable Oil Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT respect of the Specified Domestic Transactions undertaken by the assessee company during

SH. SURENDER MEENA,36, PRATAP NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

111 taxman.com 353 CIT noted that duty on sale of energy should be borne by licensee and shall not be passed on to customer and Electricity Duty under section 3(1) KSED Act being and exclusive levy on assessee, which was a State Government undertaking was to be disallowed under section 40(a)(iib)-Accordingly he set aside assessment order

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

111/-was paid as first \ninstalment. These figures exactly match with the loose paper noting. And \nassessee has not denied the fact that the paper is not related to M/s Newaji \nEstate P Ltd (In his submission he mentioned the name of this firm). As per \nthese loose papers noting payment of Rs.2

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

Transfer Pricing proceedings went on for a period of 30 months by 3 different AOs. During this period, four notices u/s 142(1) were issued by the A.O. dated 04-12-2015 raising 12 queries (PB Pg. No. 257), 04-01-2016 raising 29 queries (PB Pg. No. 17-20), 09-11-2016 raising 10 queries