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

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains\nIncome arising from transfer of long term securities (Penny stock) - Assessment years\n2012-13 and 2013-14 - Assessee purchased shares of a company and earned long-term\ncapital gain(LTCG) on sale of same - He claimed exemption of LTCG under section\n10(38) - Assessing Officer opined that assessee had made huge

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

transfer of jurisdiction from Kolkata to ACIT, central Circle, Ajmer (Rajsthan) was duly passed by the PCIT-5, Kolkata and the current AO was having jurisdiction on the date of passing the reassessment order. Thus the grounds in which the appellant had raised the objection of jurisdiction is duly dismissed. 9 Lovely promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Further, the appellant

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

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 amount

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

transfer price of power. We further, from the facts of the assessee’s case as stated above, where there is both exclusivity (resulting in huge capex for single user) advantage and uninterrupted power supply, we on facts, agree with the assessee’s claim that Rs. 1.50/unit is the minimum reliability surcharge at arm’s length principles. As regards

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

transfer power directly to the ultimate industrial consumer i.e. the manufacturing units of assessee.\n30.13. 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, 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

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

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

SHRI SALASAR BALAJI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer/ RTGS. The mechanism was operated by the company M/s Alves Securities\nPvt. Ltd. (PAN: AAJCS6641B). The company is used for providing accommodation entries. The assessee has taken\naccommodation entry from these companies.\n\nFurther,\ninformation was also received from DDIT(Inv), Unit-1(3) vide letter No. DDIT(Inv)/Unit-\n1(3)/Kol/Banka/Information/2018-19/8077 dated 26.2.2019. As per information

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

transferred from the lenders' respective bank accounts,\nwhich is a significant factor in establishing their capacity to lend.\n13.2 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Gopal Krishan v. ACIT, ITA\nNo. 892/JP/2019, underscores this principle by affirming that when the source of\nfunds can be traced back to the bank accounts of the lenders, the onus of\nproving their

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

148 of the LT. Act, 1961 is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Counter submission: The contention of the assessee that the proceeding has been barred by limitation mentioned u/s 149 of the Act is not tenable in view of the Para- 6 of CBDT's Instruction No. 01/2022

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

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

148 of the Act. The assessee trust would\nnever filed its ITR if department has not carried out survey proceedings.\nThe assessee trust is required to be audited as per provisions of section 12 of\nthe I.T. Act, 1961. Though Section 12A(1)(b) provides that the exemption u/s\n11 will be available only if the accounts are audited

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

148 of the Act. The assessee trust would\nnever filed its ITR if department has not carried out survey proceedings.\n\nThe assessee trust is required to be audited as per provisions of section 12 of\nthe I.T. Act, 1961. Though Section 12A(1)(b) provides that the exemption u/s\n11 will be available only if the accounts are audited

MOHAMMED SABIR BABUBHAI SHAIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price of property, the cost of acquisition is not known.\nThe appellant has also not substantiated or explained the difference in the sale\nprice and the stamp value also. In view of any evidences submitted to the\ncontrary by the appellant that action of the AO in taking the cost of acquisition as\nnil and added

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

transfer the case) and not by JAO.\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v.\nACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225\n(Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO\nand FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing