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

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

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)

transferred or services provided in [the international transaction or the specified domestic transaction]; As per clause (ii) of Rule 10B such price is to be adjusted for difference. No appropriate adjustment was made by TPO/AO for basic difference i.e. the assessee company was not in existence at the time of approval of tender, It was merely conduit company

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)

transferred or services provided in [the international transaction or the specified domestic transaction]; As per clause (ii) of Rule 10B such price is to be adjusted for difference. No appropriate adjustment was made by TPO/AO for basic difference i.e. the assessee company was not in existence at the time of approval of tender, It was merely conduit company

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

24, 12,049/- and\ndelete the disallowance of Rs. 90,55,18,397/-. These grounds are\ntherefore allowed.”\n4.3 On the issue of disallowance of Rs. 19,34,58,626/- out of the\nclaim u/s. 80-IA on water treatment system on account of transfer\npricing adjustment of water, the relevant fact is that the assessee\nhas computed transfer price

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) of the Act on 23.02.2018 by making various disallowances/additions to the returned income of the assessee as under :- - Reduction in claim u/s 80IA on power undertakings on account of transfer pricing adjustment of power (Rs. 2,89,07,63,321/-, - Reduction in claim u/s 80IA on Solid Waste Management System on account of transfer pricing adjustment

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

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

24, 12,049/- and \ndelete the disallowance of Rs. 90,55,18,397/-. These grounds are \ntherefore allowed.”\n4.3 On the issue of disallowance of Rs. 19,34,58,626/- out of the \nclaim u/s. 80-IA on water treatment system on account of transfer \npricing adjustment of water, the relevant fact is that the assessee \nhas computed transfer price

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

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER vs. WONDER CEMENT LTD, MADANGANJ-KISHANGARH

In the result Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

transfer, then for the purpose of deduction under section 80-IA, the profits and gains of such eligible business shall be computed by adopting arm's length pricing. In other words, if the assessing officer rejects the price as not corresponding to the market value of such good, then he has to compute the sale price of the good

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

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

24 days.\nIn submission dated, 08/01/2025, further the appellant has inter-alia submitted\nthat\nX\nX\nX\nX\nC.4 Further in the above referred notice issued by the undersigned, it was also\nobserved that the copy of assessment orders under appeal submitted by\nappellant, is assessees' copy and not the attested/certified copy of assessing\nofficer's office copy

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

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

transfer pricing guidelines. \nIn doing so, the ld. TPO, Ld. AO and the Hon’ble DRP also failed to appreciate that \nBerry ratio is applied only in specific circumstances i.e. low risk procurement and \ndistributors. Additionally, the ld. AO has erred in applying 'Berry Ratio' even when \nin appellant’s own case. Berry Ratio was rejected