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

2(24) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013. Therefore, the provisions of these sections cannot be made applicable prior to A.Y. 2013-14. (vii) Reliance is placed on the judgement dated 30.10.2017 of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s. Motisons Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 481 /JP/2017 for AY 2009-10, wherein

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

2(24) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013. Therefore, the provisions of these sections cannot be made applicable prior to A.Y. 2013-14. (vii) Reliance is placed on the judgement dated 30.10.2017 of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s. Motisons Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 481 /JP/2017 for AY 2009-10, wherein

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

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

pricing study. In view of the afore-noted discussion and the ratio of the these precedents, we direct the AO / TPO to examine the correctness of the figures placed on record by the assessee in support of its contention that the case of Goldstone Teleservices Limited was wrongly included by it in the list of comparables, which is actually

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

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

24 Shri Mahaveer Yadav, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(5) Alwar trade is sold or otherwise transferred and for the purpose of section 48, the fair market value of the asset on the date of such conversion shall be deemed to be full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of capital asset. Therefore, fair

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

transferring the majority shareholding to a company & an Individual from where share capital and share premium has flown in on the basis of Asset Based method. The authenticity of the credits share capital and share premium has not been established.” 7. Based on the submission and discussion she has taken a view which in the proceeding before her under section

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section. 23. Following the decision of this Court, in the case of Ambadi Enterprises Ltd. (supra), wherein it is held as follows:— "The Tribunal has also found that the land had not been developed earlier and that the investment made by the assessee in the year 1968 was only by way of investment and not to treat the lands

RAJESH CHOUDHARY,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

24)(x)of the Income tax Act.” 14. That the Ld. PCIT (Central), Jaipur has mentioned the incorrect facts while passing order u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, which is as follows:- (i). The assessee had surrendered Rs. 22,62,143/- on account of unexplained investment. (ii) The assessee has shown in his return of income

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

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

section 115QA of Act and therefore, the company is liable to pay tax on the distributed income of Rs. 71,99,99,211/-. 3.7 Based on these observations, ld. AO prepared the draft order dated 26/09/2023 proposing the following additions: | Transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA | Rs. 1,37,27,79,147/- | |--------------------------------------------|----------------------| | Late deposit of PF amount disallowance

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.

24, 12,049/- and delete the disallowance of Rs. 90,55,18,397/-. These grounds are therefore allowed.” 4.3 On the issue of disallowance of Rs. 19,34,58,626/- out of the claim u/s. 80-IA on water treatment system on account of transfer pricing adjustment of water, the relevant fact is that the assessee has computed transfer price

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.

24, 12,049/- and delete the disallowance of Rs. 90,55,18,397/-. These grounds are therefore allowed.” 4.3 On the issue of disallowance of Rs. 19,34,58,626/- out of the claim u/s. 80-IA on water treatment system on account of transfer pricing adjustment of water, the relevant fact is that the assessee has computed transfer price

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:

24,407 Depreciation during the year 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

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)

24,407 Depreciation during the year 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

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

2.-For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer 24[or the Transfer Pricing

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)

24 to the financial statements). CVL has issued ordinary shares, preference shares (series A-1, B-1, C-1, D-1, E- 1, F-1, G, H & I) and warrants for ordinary shares and preference shares (series G, H & I). Conversion ratio of different series of non-cumulative convertible preference shares into ordinary shares of CVL are as follows-Series

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)

24 to the financial statements). CVL has issued ordinary shares, preference shares (series A-1, B-1, C-1, D-1, E- 1, F-1, G, H & I) and warrants for ordinary shares and preference shares (series G, H & I). Conversion ratio of different series of non-cumulative convertible preference shares into ordinary shares of CVL are as follows-Series

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)

24 to the financial statements). CVL has issued ordinary shares, preference shares (series A-1, B-1, C-1, D-1, E- 1, F-1, G, H & I) and warrants for ordinary shares and preference shares (series G, H & I). Conversion ratio of different series of non-cumulative convertible preference shares into ordinary shares of CVL are as follows-Series