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)

2), Mumbai ITA No. 519/Mum/2018 Dated: -28-4-2022 2022 (8) TMI 482-ITAT MUMBAI (Case law Paper Book page 82-98) TP adjustment made in pursuance of Section 92BA (1) - specified domestic transactions- HELD THAT: In the present case there is an adjustment made to the income of the assessee by determining arm's-length price of specified domestic

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2), Mumbai ITA No. 519/Mum/2018 Dated: -28-4-2022 2022 (8) TMI 482-ITAT MUMBAI (Case law Paper Book page 82-98) TP adjustment made in pursuance of Section 92BA (1) - specified domestic transactions- HELD THAT: In the present case there is an adjustment made to the income of the assessee by determining arm's-length price of specified domestic

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

14)(iii) and consequently any gain on sale of this land is not liable for tax. 2. The jamabandi is at PB 21-27. The land was used for agricultural purposes as is evident from the Khasra Girdawari at PB 28. For better realisation of his ancestral land, he sold the same after dividing it into 34 plots. A total

LAL CHAND MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7-3, JAIPUR

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

price do not arise for consideration. Hence, considering the legislative intent of section 45(3) vis-a-vis sec. 50C, it is incorrect to held that sec. 50C would override section 45(3). 7.6 It is further submitted that by Finance Bill, 2016, Sec. 50C is proposed to be amended w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to provide that where the date

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavvaibhav Global Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम Jaipur. Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacv4679F

section 144C(13) of the Act was passed by the Assessing officer on 13.11.2019 wherein adjustment on account of transfer pricing as proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer was made and the assessed income was determined at Rs.57,36,47,429/-. 3. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel and after considering

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

14), hence in my opinion, extinguishment of right/ relinquishment of shares pursuant to merger of the CTL with CVL would be 'transfer of the investments held in CTL thereby attracting the provisions of section 45 of the Act. In the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 371 1 referred to by the appellant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

14), hence in my opinion, extinguishment of right/ relinquishment of shares pursuant to merger of the CTL with CVL would be 'transfer of the investments held in CTL thereby attracting the provisions of section 45 of the Act. In the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 371 1 referred to by the appellant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

14), hence in my opinion, extinguishment of right/ relinquishment of shares pursuant to merger of the CTL with CVL would be 'transfer of the investments held in CTL thereby attracting the provisions of section 45 of the Act. In the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 371 1 referred to by the appellant

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

price u/s 56(2)(viib) read with rule 11UA(2), following valuation certificates were submitted vide submission dated 13.05.2019 :- S. No. Date of Certificate Name of Valuer 1 18.03.2016 PC Modi & Co., Chartered Accountants 2 08.10.2016 PC Modi & Co., Chartered Accountants 3 31.10.2016 PC Modi & Co., Chartered Accountants 4 14.02.2017 PC Modi & Co., Chartered Accountants iii. & iv.c The income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

14), hence in my\nopinion, extinguishment of right/ relinquishment of shares pursuant to merger of\nthe CTL with CVL would be 'transfer of the investments held in CTL thereby\nattracting the provisions of section 45 of the Act.\nIn the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 371 1 referred to by\nthe appellant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

14), hence in my\nopinion, extinguishment of right/ relinquishment of shares pursuant to merger of\nthe CTL with CVL would be 'transfer of the investments held in CTL thereby\nattracting the provisions of section 45 of the Act.\nIn the case of Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 371 1 referred to by\nthe appellant

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

iii) The provisions of Section 56(1) the Act can be invoked to tax income of every kind which is not chargeable to tax under any head specified in Section 14 under the head ‘Income from other sources'. Therefore, provisions of sec 56(1) are not applicable. Further the amended provisions of sec 56 (2

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

iii) The provisions of Section 56(1) the Act can be invoked to tax income of every kind which is not chargeable to tax under any head specified in Section 14 under the head ‘Income from other sources'. Therefore, provisions of sec 56(1) are not applicable. Further the amended provisions of sec 56 (2

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

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

Section 92C(3) of the Act has not been satisfied. - 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO, Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the CPM considered by the appellant as the Most Appropriate Method with GP /COP as the PLI, without giving any cogent reason. - 3. Under

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.

iii) to the Explanation u/s 80A(6) r/w Sec. 80IA(8), transfer price of power captively consumed has to be based on arms’ length principles enshrined in Sec. 92F(ii), since it is specified domestic transaction vide Sec. 92BA.  As could be seen from the Order of Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC) dated 14-03-2013, Discoms had claimed reliability

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.

iii) to the Explanation u/s 80A(6) r/w Sec. 80IA(8), transfer price of power captively consumed has to be based on arms’ length principles enshrined in Sec. 92F(ii), since it is specified domestic transaction vide Sec. 92BA.  As could be seen from the Order of Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC) dated 14-03-2013, Discoms had claimed reliability

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)

iii. The ld. CIT(A) and the ld. AO have failed to appreciate the Audited financial statements which were submitted giving Income and Expenditure Statement. The assessment made on the basis of Receipts and payments made by the ld. AO was absolutely unjustified and such order deserves to be set aside. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming

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:

iii. The ld. CIT(A) and the ld. AO have failed to appreciate the Audited financial statements which were submitted giving Income and Expenditure Statement. The assessment made on the basis of Receipts and payments made by the ld. AO was absolutely unjustified and such order deserves to be set aside. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming