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)

Price Waterhouse Coopers as the sales proceeds from amalgamation and calculated capital gains based on such figure. From the detailed submissions placed before me, it is seen that the word "transfer has been inclusively defined in section 2(47

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

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

2(47) read with section 45(3), no capital gain can be assessed in the hands of the assessee and therefore the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) be deleted. 6. The ld DR vehemently argued the matter and relied on the order of the lower authorities. He submitted that subsequent to formation

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

Price Waterhouse Coopers as\nthe sales proceeds from amalgamation and calculated capital gains based on\nsuch figure.\nFrom the detailed submissions placed before me, it is seen that the word\n\"transfer has been inclusively defined in section 2(47

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

Price Waterhouse Coopers as\nthe sales proceeds from amalgamation and calculated capital gains based on\nsuch figure.\nFrom the detailed submissions placed before me, it is seen that the word\n\"transfer has been inclusively defined in section 2(47

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

price\nmentioned in the sale deed and stamp value levied under Stamp Duty Act\namounting to Rs.58,36,000/- has been brought to tax.\nDuring the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has uploaded written\nsubmission, letter of allotment and the case laws relied upon in support of his\ncontention and claimed that the addition made deserves to be deleted

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

47 )(iv) but admittedly, after 1- 4-1985, the extended meaning of the word ‘transfer’ was applicable in respect of such conversion. However, capital gain could not be computed unless such stock-in-trade was sold or otherwise transferred. The gain arose only on sale or transfer otherwise. It did not amount to giving retrospective effect to the statutes

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

47,429 as against the returned income of INR 28,11,30,040. 2 A.Y.2016-17 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Transfer Pricing Officer - 2(1 )(2), New Delhi ('Ld. TPO') has erred in proposing and the Ld. AO has erred in confirming and thereafter

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.”

47,81,456/- the assessee immediately invested the same in purchase of agricultural land at Mauja Shekhpur, Fatehbad on 28.08.2014 for a sum of Rs. 5,50,00,000/-. As the assessee had immediately invested the sales consideration in purchase of new asset, deduction was correctly claimed u/s 54B in the computation of income. However the Assessing Officer disregarded

NEERU MOHAN NAGPAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD 2(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer of\nproperty as the assessee had extinguished his right in an immovable property as\nper Section 2(47) of the Act. But in this case, in paragraph four and clause\nNo.2 of the agreement, as stated in the order of the Honourable Court, the\nvender had sought for the cancellation of the said agreement and in\nconsideration thereafter

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

47 )(iv) but admittedly, after 1- 4-1985, the extended meaning of the word ‘transfer’ was applicable in respect of such conversion. However, capital gain could not be computed unless such stock-in-trade was sold or otherwise transferred. The gain arose only on sale or transfer otherwise. It did not amount to giving retrospective effect to the 17 Pradeep

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

transfer of shares from a resident to a non-resident”, whereas, in the present case, the shares were freshly issued by the assessee company. • As per the relevant regulations concerning the Any company engaged in the business of Real Foreign Direct Investment, any company Estate Development which is engaged in development of cannot issue shares and townships, construction of residential

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 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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

price of such\ndocument is Rs. 5,57,69,640/- which has been considered as the purchases\nprice of the property acquired by the AO while making the impugned addition.\nThe Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjiv Lal vs. CIT 365 ITR 389 while\nconsidering the question as to whether the date on which agreement for sale

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion se the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner, - (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

47) makes it amply clear that compulsory land acquisition is one of the forms of land transfer. Hence, the case is squarely covered under the definition of transfer of capital asset. Also section 45(5) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is related to capital gain in case of compulsory acquisition of land which is applicable in this case. Hence, the assessee