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)

250 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The grounds raised by the assessee as well as revenue are as under :- 1. That the ld. AO grossly erred on law and facts in referring the matter with TPO by invoking section 92CA of I.T. Act, 1961 and the ld. CIT (A) also erred in not considering

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)

250 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The grounds raised by the assessee as well as revenue are as under :- 1. That the ld. AO grossly erred on law and facts in referring the matter with TPO by invoking section 92CA of I.T. Act, 1961 and the ld. CIT (A) also erred in not considering

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. 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 250 of the Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. IT Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The grounds raised by the assessee and revenue are as under :- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s claim of allowing reliability charge

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

250 has held that a person who is accused of the conditions mentioned in section 271 should be made known about the grounds on which they intend imposing penalty on him as section 274 makes it clear that assessee has a right to contest such proceedings and should have full opportunity to meet the case of the Department and show

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

250 has held that a person who is accused of the conditions mentioned in section 271 should be made known about the grounds on which they intend imposing penalty on him as section 274 makes it clear that assessee has a right to contest such proceedings and should have full opportunity to meet the case of the Department and show

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 :

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] is perverse, arbitrary and bad in law. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in observing and giving impugned finding on merits of the case while dismissing the appeal at threshold on the grounds of delay. 3. Under

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 :

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] is perverse, arbitrary and bad in law. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in observing and giving impugned finding on merits of the case while dismissing the appeal at threshold on the grounds of delay. 3. Under

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 :

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] is perverse, arbitrary and bad in law. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in observing and giving impugned finding on merits of the case while dismissing the appeal at threshold on the grounds of delay. 3. Under

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 :

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] is perverse, arbitrary and bad in law. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in observing and giving impugned finding on merits of the case while dismissing the appeal at threshold on the grounds of delay. 3. Under

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1.Ground-(i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) (by referring decision of ITAT) is right in holding that the TPO determining the Transfer Pricing cannot take another suitable methodology with cogent

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the\nAct\"] is perverse, arbitrary and bad in law.\n2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A)\nis not justified in observing and giving impugned finding on merits of the case\nwhile dismissing the appeal at threshold on the grounds of delay.\n3. Under

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

250, Mansarovar Industrial Area, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ6934C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 12/04/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 24/04/2018 vkns

ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 is to be given by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing

JAGDISH CHANDRA SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the substantial interest of justice, we set aside the ex parte order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh on merits. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) within two months from

DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JPR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 & 2020-21. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- In ITA No. 452/JP/2023 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the assessee's claim for Mines

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 & 2020-21. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- In ITA No. 452/JP/2023 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the assessee's claim for Mines