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

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

2. As submitted before the Ld. TPO through various submissions, the gross level margin earned by the appellant is computed at 15.43% which falls within the arm's length range i.e. 11.49% to 19.78% of the comparable set of 31 companies and even higher than the median of the comparable set, computed at 14.84%. - 3. Further, even at net level

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)

2,26,84,619 Total Expenditure - II 119,66,97,589 Net Surplus / (Deficit) (-) 8,59,90,118 2.5. Similarly the appellant also submitted the audited financial statements for AY 2013-14, in which also there was deficit of (-) Rs. 303,290,726/-, which is also annexed in the paper book, and the same is also reproduced hereunder for your

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:

2,26,84,619 Total Expenditure - II 119,66,97,589 Net Surplus / (Deficit) (-) 8,59,90,118 2.5. Similarly the appellant also submitted the audited financial statements for AY 2013-14, in which also there was deficit of (-) Rs. 303,290,726/-, which is also annexed in the paper book, and the same is also reproduced hereunder for your

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

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer pricing adjustment. 2. It is hereby informed that the Board has accepted the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the above mentioned Writ Petition. In view of the acceptance of the above judgment, it is directed that the ratio decidendi of the judgment must be adhered to by the field officers in all cases where this issue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer pricing adjustment. 2. It is hereby informed that the Board has accepted the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the above mentioned Writ Petition. In view of the acceptance of the above judgment, it is directed that the ratio decidendi of the judgment must be adhered to by the field officers in all cases where this issue

KOTHARI JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) of section 40A; (ii) any transaction referred to in section 80A; (iii) any transfer of goods or services referred to in sub-section (8) of section 80-IA; (iv) any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80-IA; (v) any transaction, referred to in any other section under

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

section 14A(1), deduction of that expenditure is not to be allowed which has been incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. Axiomatically, it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is includible in total income that

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

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)

145 taxmann.com 356 (Chennai-Trib.); x) ITO,Bhubaneshwar v. Ashoka Industries Ltd. (2020) 120 taxmann.com 214 (Cuttack-Trib.) xi) ACIT v. Safe Decore (P) Ltd. (2018) 90 taxmann.com 161 (Jaipur- Trib.) On the other hand, the decision relied upon by the CIT (A), i.e., ITO, Hyderabad v. M/s. Quark Enterprises P. Ltd., ITA 1270/Hyd/2019 is based on different facts

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)

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding the sales of Rs. 6,76,59,000/- deposited in bank account in the demonetized currency as bogus sale and directed to reduce the same from total sales shown by the appellant and add the same

M/S. JHANDEWALA FOODS LIMITED 35, JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground no

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. M/S KRISH HOME PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we set aside the order of the ld

2(e) of Wealth Tax Act was considered and it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that to determine the character of land according to the purpose for which it is meant or set apart and can be used, is a matter which ought to be determined on the facts of each particular case. What is really required

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

price) from the concerning person of all the 22 plots has not been taken in books. 4. The trust property is used Personal benefit of the president Shri Tejndra Pal Singh has taken loan & advances of Rs.31,50,000/- from the trust and violated the provisions of section 13(2) of the Act. Further no proper books of accounts have

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)

Price of Power for the purpose of Deduction u/s 80- IA in respect to its eligible power undertakings. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, necessary direction may be given to the A.O. to allow the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA on eligible Solid Waste Management System as per Form 10CCB filed along with

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

145 (JP)(II DPB-8-13). Interestingly, in this case also the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer, recorded finding in identical manner, as done in the case of the present appellant. In this case also, the Id. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant failed to bring any ruling of the AAR u/s 245(2

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)

2. That the goods received on approval and considered as unaccounted sale should be treated as receipt of goods. 3. That necessary credit for the duplicate/ multiple entries deserve to be allowed. 4. That the credit of additions that have also been made in the case of Shri Chandra Prakash Agrawal (appellant’s father) should be allowed. Shri Jitendra Kumar