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

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 :

Transfer 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

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 :

Transfer 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

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 :

Transfer 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

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 :

Transfer 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

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. 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 Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO passed an order under section 92CA(3) dated 25.10.2017 of the Act proposing various upward adjustments aggregating to Rs. 4,85,58,87,970/-. The AO after incorporating the proposed adjustments made by the TPO passed draft assessment order under section 144C

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "144C(5)", "92D", "10D", "92C(3)", "92B", "92C", "115JB", "270A", "36(1)(va)", "115QA", "69C", "115QB", "10B(2)", "10C", "92", "10A" ], "issues": "The key issues involve the appropriateness of the transfer pricing

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Transfer 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

VIRENDRA PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

144C(1) for the\nassessee (and similarly for the wife of the assessee) on 30.03.2024, proposing\nthe above additions. These draft orders were duly served on 31.03.2024.\n\nIX. Dispute Resolution Panel\na. The assessee, as well as his wife, filed objections against the draft orders\nbefore Id. Dispute Resolution Panel - 1, New Delhi, in accordance with Section\n144C

SANJAY MEHTA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Section 144C(5) of the Act, directed the AO\nto consolidate the entire addition of Rs.69,32,250 in the hands of assessee\nspecifically for the assessment year 2018–19. Similar such direction was\ngiven by DRP in the case of Urvashi Mehta.\n7. The relevant extracts of the DRP's findings are reproduced\nhereunder:\n“5.1 DRP DISCUSSIONS:\n5.1.1

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

transfer price of water (Rs.3/ltr) for captive \nconsumption. The price has been determined on the basis of a \nquotation obtained from Bisleri International Private Limited for Rs. \n3.50 per/ltr and making necessary adjustment in the said quotation \nand considering the stand taken by the department in earlier year.\nTPO rejected the bench marking analysis conducted by the \nassessee and substituted

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

transfer and Rs. 4.25 lacs through cheque rejection. On going through return of income filed by the assessee for AY 2018-19, it is noticed that income from above transaction has not been included in ITR. The ld. AO noted that in the assessment proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Act assessee failed to provide true and correct information / material

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 \n\n4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO, \nLd. AO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the economic analysis including the \nMost Appropriate Method and the filters applied by the appellant in the Transfer \nPricing (\"TP\") documentation maintained under section

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

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

Transfer Pricing proceedings, the above said addition was made on the directions of Dispute Resolution Penal ( in short “DRP”) as per order dated 09.09.2021, passed u/s 144C(5) of the Act. In the impugned order, Learned PCIT also observed in para 5 thereof that the AO had failed to apply his mind to the material available on record, and also

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)

144C(13) is unsustainable in law. (c) not pointing out any discrepancy or incorrectness in the submission and documentary evidence filed in course of proceeding u/s 263. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PPCIT has erred by holding that employee’s contribution to PF amounting to Rs.2,59,71,570/- should