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,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)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

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)

114 taxmann.com 351(SC)/270 Taxman 15(SC) dated 16.09.2019. Ground 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in not carrying out her duty of adjudicating the grounds on merit, and dismissing them only on a technical ground. Ground 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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)

114 taxmann.com 351(SC)/270 Taxman 15(SC) dated 16.09.2019. Ground 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in not carrying out her duty of adjudicating the grounds on merit, and dismissing them only on a technical ground. Ground 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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)

114 taxmann.com 351(SC)/270 Taxman 15(SC) dated 16.09.2019. Ground 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in not carrying out her duty of adjudicating the grounds on merit, and dismissing them only on a technical ground. Ground 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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)

114 taxmann.com 351(SC)/270 Taxman 15(SC) dated 16.09.2019. Ground 2. The Ld. CIT(Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in not carrying out her duty of adjudicating the grounds on merit, and dismissing them only on a technical ground. Ground 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

UTTAM BHARAT ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Study Analysis and claimed that as per the Internal CUP of payment of interest to the unrelated parties, the assessee is paying average interest and brokerage amounting to 15.36%. The assessee claimed that the Specified Domestic Transaction interest to the related parties at 15% is at Arm’s Length. The TPO has proceeded to adopt External

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

transferring the majority shareholding to a company & an Individual from where share capital and share premium has flown in on the basis of Asset Based method. The authenticity of the credits share capital and share premium has not been established.” 7. Based on the submission and discussion she has taken a view which in the proceeding before her under section

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

114 of the Evidence Act provides that the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. The aforesaid provisions are nothing but recognition of board principles

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

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

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

prices of gold were doubling or tripling after the next day or the jewellery would not have been available on the next day. The rush was at the Jewellers apparently due to the reason that some people wanted to buy jewellery in cash using the demonetised currency which they could not have deposited in the bank account as that

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)

pricing audit has certified that the particulars given in the Annexure of Form 3CEB are true and correct. Ground No.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

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transferred under sub-section (8)], on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, shall be non est if such assessment is not made in accordance with the procedure laid down under this section." (emphasis supplied) 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in submitting that Section

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

114 TTJ Jodh 841, where one of us was constituted in that Bench, has expressed similar view. Thus, by respectfully following the decisions of various Benches of ITAT, in our considered opinion the matter should be restored back to the file of the AO with the direction that the ‘valuation issue should be referred for valuation to the departmental valuer

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

114 TTJ Jodh 841, where one of us was constituted in that Bench, has expressed similar view. Thus, by respectfully following the decisions of various Benches of ITAT, in our considered opinion the matter should be restored back to the file of the AO with the direction that the ‘valuation issue should be referred for valuation to the departmental valuer

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

114-121). Also refer a direct decision in the case of ITO vs Kulbeer Singh in ITA No.5204/Del/2014 vide order dated 03.10.2018 (DPB 133-169) 5.2 Further the AO has misinterpreted the said Explanation 2. What all is provided in the Explanation 2 is that S.195 applies to all the persons who is responsible to pay (payer), is liable