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

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

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

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)

transfer price of power adopted by the assessee in the said case. The Ld. D/R had nothing to defend against the aforesaid contention of the assessee. 8.4 Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the coordinate bench of the Jodhpur Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc (supra), we are of the view that reliability charge @15% of Grid rate

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

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

section 115QA of Act and therefore, the company is liable to pay tax \non the distributed income of Rs.71,99,99,211/-. \n\n3.7 Based on these observations, ld. AO prepared the draft order dated \n26/09/2023 proposing the following additions: \n\n\nParticulars \nAddition (Rs.) \nTransfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA Rs.1,37,27,79,147/- \nLate deposit of PF amount

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

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

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3)\nof section 92CA; and\n(ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company:\n11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section\n144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed\nassessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

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)

27 - Page No. 68 and Note: 11 - Page No. 61 respectively of the Annual Report for the F.Y. 2015-16) (ii) As stated above the liability for such expenses claimed was not accrued during the year under consideration. (iii) The expenses claimed by the assessee as per the above, being contingent liability, are expressly not allowable as per the provisions

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)

27 - Page No. 68 and Note: 11 - Page No. 61 respectively of the Annual Report for the F.Y. 2015-16) (ii) As stated above the liability for such expenses claimed was not accrued during the year under consideration. (iii) The expenses claimed by the assessee as per the above, being contingent liability, are expressly not allowable as per the provisions

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)

27 - Page No. 68 and Note: 11 - Page No. 61 respectively of the Annual Report for the F.Y. 2015-16) (ii) As stated above the liability for such expenses claimed was not accrued during the year under consideration. (iii) The expenses claimed by the assessee as per the above, being contingent liability, are expressly not allowable as per the provisions

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

27 - Page No. 68 and Note: 11 Page No. 61\nrespectively of the Annual Report for the F.Y. 2015-16)\n(ii) As stated above the liability for such expenses claimed was not accrued during the\nyear under consideration.\n(iii) The expenses claimed by the assessee as per the above, being contingent liability,\nare expressly not allowable

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

27 - Page No. 68 and Note: 11 Page No. 61\nrespectively of the Annual Report for the F.Y. 2015-16)\n(ii) As stated above the liability for such expenses claimed was not accrued during the\nyear under consideration.\n(iii) The expenses claimed by the assessee as per the above, being contingent liability,\nare expressly not allowable

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)

27,000 – Amount recorded in Books of accounts Rs. 69,64,857/-). (iv). That in response to the above question, assessee submitted that he does not have some bills/vouchers. Further, it is submitted that assessee had surrendered this amount of Rs. 22,62,143/- as Undisclosed Investment and assessee had also declared the amount

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

Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n3. The Ld. TPO and Hon'ble DRP has erred on facts and in law in proposing an \nadjustment of amount of Rs.136,31,75,249/- to the income of the appellant on \naccount of alleged difference in Arm's Length Price (ALP) of the international \ntransaction of sale and purchase