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

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

127 ITR 431 (MP). Accordingly, an amount of Rs. 84,09,200/- from the sale of 20 residential plots of land was brought to tax as undisclosed business income of the assessee for the impugned assessment year. 12 Shri Mahaveer Yadav, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(5) Alwar 13. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

LAL CHAND MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7-3, JAIPUR

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

price do not arise for consideration. Hence, considering the legislative intent of section 45(3) vis-a-vis sec. 50C, it is incorrect to held that sec. 50C would override section 45(3). 7.6 It is further submitted that by Finance Bill, 2016, Sec. 50C is proposed to be amended w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to provide that where the date

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

127 of the I. T. Act dated 28.10.2020 issued by CIT (E) the case was centralized with DCIT(E), Circle-Jaipur. The CBDT, in view of COVID extended the limitation to finalize assessment through various notifications. Finally vide notification dated 25-06-2021 limitation to complete assessment was extended to 30.09.2021. In this case due to technical difficulty pendency could

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

127 of the I. T. Act dated 28.10.2020 issued by CIT (E) the case was centralized with DCIT(E), Circle-Jaipur. The CBDT, in view of COVID extended the limitation to finalize assessment through various notifications. Finally vide notification dated 25-06-2021 limitation to complete assessment was extended to 30.09.2021. In this case due to technical difficulty pendency could

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. 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

HOLIDAY TRIANGLE TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

127 (Bangalore Trib.) 3. Osianama Learning Experience P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2023) 155 taxmann.com 533 (Mumbai Trib.) 4. M/s. Mobicom Technologies P. Ltd. vs. ITO ITA No. 494/Bang/2023 dated 12.09.2023. 12 Holiday Triangle Travel Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon. 5. Agro Portfolio Pvt.Ltd. vs.ITO ITA No. 2189/Del/2018 dated 16.05.2018. 6. ITO vs. M/s. Quark Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 1270/Hyd/2019 dated

RAJESH CHOUDHARY,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

127 of the Act vide order dated 0-7-01- 2021. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) dated 29-01-2021 along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee. The notices were sent to the assessee from time to time and the documents reply were furnished by the ld. AR of the assessee. It is noticed that the assessee is running

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)

transfer price) for determining the quantum of deduction under section 80IA already calimed in the original return of income. The judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case ofWipro, is applicable to cases wherein “new claim” is filed by way of revised return for claiming “exemption” under section 10B of the IT Act. In the present case, there

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

transfer price of power in terms of Sec. 92F(ii), keeping in mind, that in case of the Appellant, (1) it has incurred huge capex, for setting up the power undertaking exclusively for the CMUs and (2) it provides un interrupted power to CMUs. Alternatively, 15% markup may be allowed for each of the aforesaid advantages to the actual user

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

transfer price of power in terms of Sec. 92F(ii), keeping in mind, that in case of the Appellant, (1) it has incurred huge capex, for setting up the power undertaking exclusively for the CMUs and (2) it provides un interrupted power to CMUs. Alternatively, 15% markup may be allowed for each of the aforesaid advantages to the actual user

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

transfer price of power in terms of Sec. 92F(ii), keeping in mind, that in case of the Appellant, (1) it has incurred huge capex, for setting up the power undertaking exclusively for the CMUs and (2) it provides un interrupted power to CMUs. Alternatively, 15% markup may be allowed for each of the aforesaid advantages to the actual user

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

127 of PCIT-2, Jaipur vide order dated 13.07.2023. \nThe assessment proceedings were commenced by issuance of notice u/s \n142(1) along with questionnaire on 18.12.2023.\n5.1 In the questionnaire issued by the ld. AO it was contended by the ld. \nAO that Gokul Kripa Group accepts on money (in cash) on sales of its plots \nin all its ongoing

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

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

127 dated 07/04/2021 was passed from the office of PCIT-5, Kolkata for transferring jurisdiction of Assessee Company from Kolkata to Ajmer (Rajasthan). In such order it has been stated that jurisdiction has been centralized in consequence of search and survey operation conducted in the group "Saini Gupta Jain Group". In such order it has not been stated that search