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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

transfer power directly to the ultimate industrial consumer i.e. the manufacturing units of assessee. 30.13. Further, the aspect as to why rate at which power is sold to 3rd parties including Power distribution companies should not be considered as internal CUP and hence considered for computing arm's length price under the Transfer Pricing regulations, needs to be dealt with

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

BLUEPRINT INFRAHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. ADIT CPC BENGALURU OR ITO WARD 6(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

transferred to National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in February, 2017; we had not been able to hold AGM of "Saitech Medicare Private Limited" since 2015. Whenever we tried to hold AGM; Mr. Bhalotia invoked CLB which restrained us from holding AGM and ultimately we had to give an undertaking to the CLB of not holding any AGM without

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)

4,85,58,87,970/-. The AO after incorporating the proposed adjustments made by the TPO passed draft assessment order under section 144C of the Act on 28.12.2017 determining total income under the normal provisions of the Act at Rs. 453,88,97,023/- and Rs. 842,23,40,345/- under provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. Since

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

139(4A) within time allowed under that section. 31. We find that aforesaid conditions for seeking exemption as so provided in the Act of 1961 are conspicuously absent in the erstwhile provisions of claiming exemption under the Act of 1922. 25 Bharatpur Royal Family Religious & Ceremonial Trust Moti Mahal, Bharatpur Vs. CIT(E), Jaipur 32. Further, section 12AA talks about

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

139,147,148,149,151 & 153. " In view of the above discussion, the assessment completed u/s 144 deserves to be quashed. The order of the Learned CIT(A) also deserved to be quashed on this ground. Additional Ground No.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in including

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

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)

section 139(1). In this case, assessee has not filed a revised to claim reliability charges of Rs. 1.50 per unit in computing Transfer Price of Power for the purpose of deduction u/s 80-1A of the Act and therefore, same was rightly rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). However, Hon'ble ITAT has allowed the same without giving

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

price of the immovable property was Rs.40 lakhs. In the\ncourse of search action it has been found that the appellant has been regularly\nindulging in transactions of sale and purchase of immovable properties and it\ncannot be said that he is not having other sources of income and he has been\nearning income as middleman and income as gain

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

transferred by Shri Shri Madho Lal Saini and Others. Madan Mohan Gupta and his wife Smt. Shashi Kala Gupta were the shares of M/s Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. which owned the land in question. There may be a case of under valuation of shares and understatement of consideration paid by the assessee however, it is not a case of purchase

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

transfer\npricing orders wherein downward adjustments were made to the price\npaid for the equipment imported by the AE. The Assessee had filed an\nappeal to this Tribunal against the appellate order for Assessment Year\n2013-14 (arising from the assessment under Section 143(3) and the TPO\norder). This appeal was disposed in RKM POWERGEN PRIVATE\nLIMITED

NAVAL KISHORE ,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

transferred\n\nthe profit even then, there is absolutely no evidence brought in record\nas to when and in what mariner such profit was paid to the appellant.\nSince the onus is on the Revenue, hence it is bound to prove the\nreceipt of income.\nThe argument of the appellant are considered. The claim of the\nappellant is contradictory

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SH. NAVAL KISHORE, KOTA

transferred \nthe profit even then, there is absolutely no evidence brought in record \nas to when and in what mariner such profit was paid to the appellant. \nSince the onus is on the Revenue, hence it is bound to prove the \nreceipt of income. \nThe argument of the appellant are considered. The claim of the \nappellant is contradictory

M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,E-8, EPIP RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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)

139(1) of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year under consideration on 27.11.2021 declaring a total loss of (-) Rs. 3,29,36,110/-. Consequently, notice under section 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 28.06.2022 which was duly served upon the assessee. In compliance of the notice, the assessee filed its reply on ITBA portal, and printed

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)

139(1) of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year under consideration on 27.11.2021 declaring a total loss of (-) Rs. 3,29,36,110/-. Consequently, notice under section 143(2) was issued to the assessee on 28.06.2022 which was duly served upon the assessee. In compliance of the notice, the assessee filed its reply on ITBA portal, and printed

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

DCIT, CIRCLE-6 JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, TILAK NAGAR JPR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

transferred, before the expiry of the period of ten years specified in sub-section (1), to another Indian company in a scheme of demerger,— (i) no deduction shall be admissible under sub-section (1) in the case of the demerged company for the previous year in which the demerger takes place; and (ii) the provisions of this section shall