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

vi) The provisions of sec 56(2) (viib) of Income-tax Act, 1961 are applicable w.e.f. 1st April, 2013 and will accordingly apply in relation to AY 2013-14 and subsequent assessment years. The income as ITA 696 & 1081/JP/2018_ 6 mentioned in section 56(2) (viib) of the Act is included in definition of section 2(24

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

vi) The provisions of sec 56(2) (viib) of Income-tax Act, 1961 are applicable w.e.f. 1st April, 2013 and will accordingly apply in relation to AY 2013-14 and subsequent assessment years. The income as ITA 696 & 1081/JP/2018_ 6 mentioned in section 56(2) (viib) of the Act is included in definition of section 2(24

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

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

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

vi) With a NIL turnover, maintaining the unsecured loan to the tune of Rs.7,31,25,000/- and raising the book value of fixed assets (net of depreciation) to Rs.3,89,19,099/- in A.Y. 2017-18 and then transferring the majority shareholding to a company & an Individual from where share capital and share premium has flown

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

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 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

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

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

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

24 to the financial\nstatements).\nCVL has issued ordinary shares, preference shares (series A-1, B-1, C-1, D-1, E-\n1, F-1, G, H & I) and warrants for ordinary shares and preference shares (series\nG, H & I). Conversion ratio of different series of non-cumulative convertible\npreference 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

24 to the financial\nstatements).\nCVL has issued ordinary shares, preference shares (series A-1, B-1, C-1, D-1, E-\n1, F-1, G, H & I) and warrants for ordinary shares and preference shares (series\nG, H & I). Conversion ratio of different series of non-cumulative convertible\npreference shares into ordinary shares of CVL are as follows-Series

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section 144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section 144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section 144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation