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

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

pricing, discounts, credit worthiness, number of years of relationship. Etc. and accordingly, it would not be feasible to consider a uniform credit period without taking into consideration the specific factors for the particular trade. - 2. In the instant case, the appellant has granted a credit period of up to 180 days to both AEs as well as third parties

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 (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

KOTHARI JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing, present case of sale to the sister concern are not covered within its ambit. 3.11 Assessee company has all the right to sell its goods at a price, mutually negotiated, found prudent as a businessman provided there is no allegation of any receipt over and above the declared consideration. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,E-8, EPIP RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE 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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

UTTAM BHARAT ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Study Analysis and claimed that as per the Internal CUP of payment of interest to the unrelated parties, the assessee is paying average interest and brokerage amounting to 15.36%. The assessee claimed that the Specified Domestic Transaction interest to the related parties at 15% is at Arm’s Length. The TPO has proceeded to adopt External

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

price', is ab- initio void as per the provisions of sec.23of the Contracts Act, 1872 and thus non- est in the eyes of law. Hence, such SBNs cannot be treated as having arisen out of a contract for sale…….” It is held by the Hon'ble ITAT as under:- “70. From the reading of the above notification, it is abundantly

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

transfer to goods of Rs 400.95 crores from eligible unit to non- eligible units, form 3CEB (clause 23A) shows NIL amount. Similarly in clause 24 of form 3CEB, the assessee has again reported that transactions with any eligible unit which has resulted in more than ordinary profits to an eligible business are also reported at "NIL" This shows clear

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BITTHAL DAS PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

transfer of equity share acquired or on after 1st day of October, 2004 shall be available only if the acquisition of share is chargeable to STT under Chapter VII of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004. So, now to claim the exemption u/s 10 (38), it is also mandatory that the transaction of acquisition of shares is carried through recognize stock

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SAROJ PARWAL, JAIPUR

transfer of equity share acquired or on after 1st day of October, 2004 shall be available only if the acquisition of share is chargeable to STT under Chapter VII of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004. So, now to claim the exemption u/s 10 (38), it is also mandatory that the transaction of acquisition of shares is carried through recognize stock

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

transfer of equity share acquired or on after 1st day of October, 2004 shall be available only if the acquisition of share is chargeable to STT under Chapter VII of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004. So, now to claim the exemption u/s 10 (38), it is also mandatory that the transaction of acquisition of shares is carried through recognize stock

DCIT, C.C. -03, JAIPUR vs. SHRI TEJENDER KUMAR FALOR, JAIPUR

transfer of equity share acquired or on after 1st day of October, 2004 shall be available only if the acquisition of share is chargeable to STT under Chapter VII of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004. So, now to claim the exemption u/s 10 (38), it is also mandatory that the transaction of acquisition of shares is carried through recognize stock

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. JYOTI FALOR, JAIPUR

transfer of equity share acquired or on after 1st day of October, 2004 shall be available only if the acquisition of share is chargeable to STT under Chapter VII of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004. So, now to claim the exemption u/s 10 (38), it is also mandatory that the transaction of acquisition of shares is carried through recognize stock

MANIRATNAM GEMS PVT. LTD.,BEAWAR vs. ACIT,C-2, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

transferred to and 10 M/s.Maniratnam Gems (P) Ltd. vs ACIT, Circle-2, Ajmer from Mumbai & Surat. Therefore, assortment charges were incurred and paid in Mumbai Office. The complete details of such expenses was also submitted during the course of assessment proceedings, and the details are also there in the paper book filed by the departmental paper book at pages

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

Transfer Pricing proceedings went on for a period of 30 months by 3 different AOs. During this period, four notices u/s 142(1) were issued by the A.O. dated 04-12-2015 raising 12 queries (PB Pg. No. 257), 04-01-2016 raising 29 queries (PB Pg. No. 17-20), 09-11-2016 raising 10 queries

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

297 (Mumbai - Trib.), it was held that: “5. ….. In the present case, the Revenue states of the liabilities continuing to outstand in the assessee's books from 3 to 25 years. Surely, the same raises considerable doubts as to the existence of the liability/s. True, they stand not written back and continue to outstand in the assessee's books

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

297, after referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McMillan & Co. (supra) held that if a mistake has been committed by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment order, which has been discovered by him during the pendency of appeal before the AAC, then the ITO alone was not entitled to rectify the error

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

297 CTR 614\n(Bombay) where-in, the court states that a plain reading of Section 251 (1) (a)\nand (b) & explanation of Section 251 (2) of the act mandates that CIT (A) shall\napply its mind to all the issues which arise from the order before him, whether or\nnot the appellant has raised the same before him. Therefore

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will have