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.

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 of water (Rs.3/ltr) for captive consumption. The price has been determined on the basis of a quotation obtained from Bisleri International Private Limited for Rs. 3.50 per/ltr

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

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 of water (Rs.3/ltr) for captive consumption. The price has been determined on the basis of a quotation obtained from Bisleri International Private Limited for Rs. 3.50 per/ltr

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)

Section 40A(2) for want of motive of evasion of tax Accordingly on principle, we accept the contention of the learned AR however, the Assessing Officer to directed to verify the rate of tax at which the recipient of interest have paid tax and if the rate of tax paid by the recipient is equivalent to the rate

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)

Section 40A(2) for want of motive of evasion of tax Accordingly on principle, we accept the contention of the learned AR however, the Assessing Officer to directed to verify the rate of tax at which the recipient of interest have paid tax and if the rate of tax paid by the recipient is equivalent to the rate

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

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 of water (Rs.3/ltr) for captive\nconsumption. The price has been determined on the basis of a\nquotation obtained from Bisleri International Private Limited for Rs.\n3.50 per/ltr

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 Pricing. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) NFAC Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 62,34,41,568/- on account of sales tax subsidy and electricity duty exemptions received by assessee in nature of capital received and the same

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

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 of water (Rs.3/ltr) for captive \nconsumption. The price has been determined on the basis of a \nquotation obtained from Bisleri International Private Limited for Rs. \n3.50 per/ltr

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 is appropriate. It may be mentioned that as pointed out by the appellant, the extinguishment of investments in CTL, owing to its merger with CVL, is not covered under the exceptions provided in section 47 of the Act. Section 47(vii), which exempts capital gain on the hands of shareholder of amalgamating company, as and when its shareholding

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 is appropriate. It may be mentioned that as pointed out by the appellant, the extinguishment of investments in CTL, owing to its merger with CVL, is not covered under the exceptions provided in section 47 of the Act. Section 47(vii), which exempts capital gain on the hands of shareholder of amalgamating company, as and when its shareholding

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 is appropriate. It may be mentioned that as pointed out by the appellant, the extinguishment of investments in CTL, owing to its merger with CVL, is not covered under the exceptions provided in section 47 of the Act. Section 47(vii), which exempts capital gain on the hands of shareholder of amalgamating company, as and when its shareholding

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

price of shares of the first company and\nthe second company on the date of exchange was income chargeable. Hence by\ncorollary, the loss on similar exchange is to be allowed. Thus the allegation of the\n032\nITA No. 1090, 1097 ΤΟ 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024\nChambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota\nassessing officer that there is no transfer within the meaning

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

price of shares of the first company and\nthe second company on the date of exchange was income chargeable. Hence by\ncorollary, the loss on similar exchange is to be allowed. Thus the allegation of the\n032\nITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024\nChambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota\nassessing officer that there is no transfer within the meaning

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)

Price of Power for the purpose of Deduction u/s 80- IA in respect to its eligible power undertakings. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, necessary direction may be given to the A.O. to allow the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA on eligible Solid Waste Management System as per Form 10CCB filed along with

ARUN PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL),, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

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 of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

ZARI SILK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

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 of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

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 of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

transferred, before the expiry of the period of ten years specified in sub-section (1), to another Indian company in a scheme of demerger,— (i) no deduction shall be admissible under sub-section (1) in the case of the demerged company for the previous year in which the demerger takes place; and (ii) the provisions of this section shall

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

transferred, before the expiry of the period of ten years specified in sub-section (1), to another Indian company in a scheme of demerger,— (i) no deduction shall be admissible under sub-section (1) in the case of the demerged company for the previous year in which the demerger takes place; and (ii) the provisions of this section shall