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 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s claim of allowing reliability charge of Rs. 1.5/unit in computing Transfer Price

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 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s claim of allowing reliability charge of Rs. 1.5/unit in computing Transfer Price

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

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

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

Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act.\n2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. \nCIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s \nclaim of allowing reliability charge of Rs. 1.5/unit in computing Transfer \nPrice of Power for the purpose of Deduction u/s 80-IA in respect

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

144B. 6[(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision of this Act, the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under sub-section (3) of section 143 or under section 144 or under section 147, as the case may be, with respect to the cases referred to in sub-section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner

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

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is upheld in full. 6.2 In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 5. Feeling dissatisfied with the above finding so recorded in the order of the ld. CIT(A) the assessee appellant has preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as reiterated herein above. In support of the various grounds

ANITA LODHA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT - 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

19. In view of the above findings, this appeal filed by the assessee deserves to be allowed

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order directing a fresh assessment. 4. Vide impugned order, Learned PCIT has held the assessment order dated 30.03.2022, for the assessment year

MIKUNI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT,

12. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in this appeal, when the assessment order dated 27

Bench: passing the impugned order, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee, as Learned PCIT found that the Assessing Officer, while framing the above said assessment and the making addition, did not initiate penalty proceedings 270A of the Act. Learned PCIT was of the view that penalty proceedings were to be initiated under the said provision on account of misreporting of income, which came to be added by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee company. It being a Transfer Pri

144B of the Act and assessed total income of the assessee at Rs. 6,75,33,340/-, while making additions on account of Transfer Pricing adjustment amounting to Rs. 6,44,86,098/-. 3. Before passing the impugned order, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee, as Learned PCIT found that the Assessing Officer, while framing the above said assessment

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transfer upon Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General of National e- Assessment Centre and not upon any other Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. As is evident from the above, the Court came to the firm conclusion that irrespective of the system of faceless assessment that

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transfer upon Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General of National e- Assessment Centre and not upon any other Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. As is evident from the above, the Court came to the firm conclusion that irrespective of the system of faceless assessment that

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transferred to Regional e- Assessment Centre to complete the proceedings under Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019. Statutory notices were issued on 01/02/2021,05/10/2021 and 09/12/2021 asking to explain the issue and submit the details called for. The assessee company neither filed its return of income in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act nor respond to any of the notices

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

144B of the IT Act, any notice or order passed by the NFAC is required to be delivered to the assessee, however, the same were uploaded on the income tax portal and were never received either through mail or post. It is further submitted that the despite of furnishing the submissions and documents in the year 2019 itself

MILESTONE DEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 completed on 22.04.2021, wherein the addition of Rs.11,65,11,479/- made on account of unexplained investment of stock as per provisions contained in section 69B r.w.s. 115BBE. 6 Milestone Dewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 4. Aggrieved from the said action of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before

HARI NARAYAN MEENA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JAIPUR

price, expenses\nincurred upto acquiring date in the form of registration, storage etc.\n7.4 Here in the case of the taxpayer, cost of expenditure includes\nCost of acquisition of the land which is given as 168000000. Apart from\nthat taxpayer has claimed JDA expenses and additional expenses @\nRs 88.95 lakhs. JDA expenses is nothing but joint development\nexpenses incurred

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

transfer of long-term capital asset being equity shares of company shall not be form part of total income if securities transaction tax is applicable on such transaction. In the present case, the share in which Appellant was invested were long term capital assets and it is clearly evident from the contract notes that securities transaction tax was charged

VIPUL KUMAR MODI ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR -I

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

transferred through Demat Account of concerned broker. The price at which the shares have been sold on real time basis on the Bombay Stock Exchange. Security Transaction tax has been charged /deducted from the sale proceeds. 5. That the assessee had disclosed all the transactions in his reply and had also produced relevant documents support his transactions including purchase bill

LAL CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(2), JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transfer of the old asset, charge of the capital gain was only on the old asset, and investment in new asset did not and could not nullify or take away the case from the charging section 45. According to the Tribunal, first it was section 45 which came into operation, then it was section 48 which provided computation of capital