DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

transfer pricing adjustment has been made in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of sec. 92BA of the Act, which is in relation to expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (2) of section 40A. We submit that the provision of Section

KOTHARI JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 145(3) of the Act. Regarding estimation of GP rate, the AO observed that under no circumstances, can gold and other precious metals be sold at below market price and this clearly shows that in the instant case, the assessee has not reflected true GP on its sale by stock transfer

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

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

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

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will have

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

145(3) the ld AO assessed the income of assessee u/s 144 of Income Tax Act. As per provisions of section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the total income should be computed after taking into consideration all relevant material gathered as a result of search and on the basis of best judgment. The Income Tax department carried

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

transferred to theAOof theother person on the date ofrecordingofsatisfactionby the commonAO. Since, the Revenue has not producedthesatisfactionnoterecordedby the commonAOin this case, one can only presume thatsatisfactionwasrecordedimmediately prior to the issue of notice under Section 153C of the Act. As per standard practice of the Department the notice u/s 153C is issued immediately after recording of satisfaction. v) Therefore, the whole

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

transferred to theAOof theother person on the date ofrecordingofsatisfactionby the commonAO. Since, the Revenue has not producedthesatisfactionnoterecordedby the commonAOin this case, one can only presume thatsatisfactionwasrecordedimmediately prior to the issue of notice under Section 153C of the Act. As per standard practice of the Department the notice u/s 153C is issued immediately after recording of satisfaction. v) Therefore, the whole

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

transfer of 145.95 kgs of silver within the group i.e. from Garg Jewellers to Royal Jewellers has been mentioned on these papers. It is therefore submitted that that these seized loose papers have been incorrectly been assumed to be a parallel balance sheet of the appellant’s sister concern (i.e. M/s Royal Jewellers) by the ld. AO. As stated above

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

transfer of 145.95 kgs of silver within the group i.e. from Garg Jewellers to Royal Jewellers has been mentioned on these papers. It is therefore submitted that that these seized loose papers have been incorrectly been assumed to be a parallel balance sheet of the appellant’s sister concern (i.e. M/s Royal Jewellers) by the ld. AO. As stated above

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

transfer of 145.95 kgs of silver within the group i.e. from Garg Jewellers to Royal Jewellers has been mentioned on these papers. It is therefore submitted that that these seized loose papers have been incorrectly been assumed to be a parallel balance sheet of the appellant’s sister concern (i.e. M/s Royal Jewellers) by the ld. AO. As stated above

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

transfer of 145.95 kgs of silver within the group i.e. from Garg Jewellers to Royal Jewellers has been mentioned on these papers. It is therefore submitted that that these seized loose papers have been incorrectly been assumed to be a parallel balance sheet of the appellant’s sister concern (i.e. M/s Royal Jewellers) by the ld. AO. As stated above

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

transfer of 145.95 kgs of silver within the group i.e. from Garg Jewellers to Royal Jewellers has been mentioned on these papers. It is therefore submitted that that these seized loose papers have been incorrectly been assumed to be a parallel balance sheet of the appellant’s sister concern (i.e. M/s Royal Jewellers) by the ld. AO. As stated above

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

transfer of 145.95 kgs of silver within the group i.e. from Garg Jewellers to Royal Jewellers has been mentioned on these papers. It is therefore submitted that that these seized loose papers have been incorrectly been assumed to be a parallel balance sheet of the appellant’s sister concern (i.e. M/s Royal Jewellers) by the ld. AO. As stated above

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

transfer of 145.95 kgs of silver within the group i.e. from Garg Jewellers to Royal Jewellers has been mentioned on these papers. It is therefore submitted that that these seized loose papers have been incorrectly been assumed to be a parallel balance sheet of the appellant’s sister concern (i.e. M/s Royal Jewellers) by the ld. AO. As stated above

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

transfer of 145.95 kgs of silver within the group i.e. from Garg Jewellers to Royal Jewellers has been mentioned on these papers. It is therefore submitted that that these seized loose papers have been incorrectly been assumed to be a parallel balance sheet of the appellant’s sister concern (i.e. M/s Royal Jewellers) by the ld. AO. As stated above

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

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

transfer of 145.95 kgs of silver within the group i.e. from Garg Jewellers to Royal Jewellers has been mentioned on these papers. It is therefore submitted that that these seized loose papers have been incorrectly been assumed to be a parallel balance sheet of the appellant’s sister concern (i.e. M/s Royal Jewellers) by the ld. AO. As stated above

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

transfer pricing adjustment under section 92CA(1) was made to the income of the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer did not furnish to the assessee a draft assessment order, before passing a final assessment order. On appeal before the ld CIT(A), the assessee raised its grievance of not being furnished a draft assessment order. The ld CIT(A) rejected