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)

36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of the amounts said to have been invested in subsidiaries/group companies/associates , and to remit the matter to Learned Assessing Officer for decision afresh so as to record finding as to interest free funds available with the assessee during the assessment years under consideration, after verification of all relevant documents relied on behalf

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act etc. but nevertheless is entitled to hold the property to the exclusion of all others.” 12 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 70. In the present case, applying the ratio so laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mysore Minerals, we agree with the findings

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act etc. but nevertheless is entitled to hold the property to the exclusion of all others.” 12 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 70. In the present case, applying the ratio so laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mysore Minerals, we agree with the findings

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act etc. but nevertheless is entitled to hold the property to the exclusion of all others.” 12 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 70. In the present case, applying the ratio so laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mysore Minerals, we agree with the findings

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act\nin respect of the amounts said to have been invested in subsidiaries/group\ncompanies/associates\nand to remit the matter to Learned Assessing\nOfficer for decision afresh so as to record finding as to interest free funds\navailable with the assessee during the assessment years under\nconsideration, after verification of all relevant documents relied on behalf

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act\nin respect of the amounts said to have been invested in subsidiaries/group\ncompanies/associates\nand to remit the matter to Learned Assessing\nOfficer for decision afresh so as to record finding as to interest free funds\navailable with the assessee during the assessment years under\nconsideration, after verification of all relevant documents relied on behalf

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

price of property.\n5. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer the\nassessee preferred an appeal before the Id. CIT(A). Apropos to the\ngrounds so raised by the assessee, the relevant finding of the Id.\nCIT(A) is as under:-\n\"In this case the search action took place on 02.08.2017. Appellant had\nfiled his original return

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

price of property. Sh. Magendra Singh Rathore 5. Aggrieved by the above order of the Assessing Officer the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised by the assessee, the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- “In this case the search action took place on 02.08.2017. Appellant had filed

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

iii) an order under section 92CA by the Transfer Pricing Officer:] (b) "record" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner; (c) where any order referred to in this

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

transferred in lieu of part sale consideration and interest is worked out on the on the outstanding liabilities (loan taken). During the year interest paid on loans including financial brokerage and bank commission is Rs.4,77,36,535/-. 3. As per point No.28(b) of form No.3CD reflecting finished and work in progress the opening stock in respect of 'commercial

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

transferred in lieu of part sale consideration and interest is worked out on the on the outstanding liabilities (loan taken). During the year interest paid on loans including financial brokerage and bank commission is Rs.4,77,36,535/-. 3. As per point No.28(b) of form No.3CD reflecting finished and work in progress the opening stock in respect of 'commercial

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

transferred in lieu of part sale consideration and interest is worked out on the on the outstanding liabilities (loan taken). During the year interest paid on loans including financial brokerage and bank commission is Rs.4,77,36,535/-. 3. As per point No.28(b) of form No.3CD reflecting finished and work in progress the opening stock in respect of 'commercial

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

section 36(1)(iii) whereby theincome to the extent of Rs. 1,69,70,854/- was enhanced. The ld.CIT (A) issued a notice u/s 251(2) (Refer CIT(A) Pg-11) which was duly replied( PB 73-79),by the appellant however, feeling dissatisfied, the CIT(A) made the disallowance.Hence this appeal. GOA 1: Rs.1,69,70,854/-: The ld.CIT

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

section 36(1)(iii) whereby theincome to the extent of Rs. 1,69,70,854/- was enhanced. The ld.CIT (A) issued a notice u/s 251(2) (Refer CIT(A) Pg-11) which was duly replied( PB 73-79),by the appellant however, feeling dissatisfied, the CIT(A) made the disallowance.Hence this appeal. GOA 1: Rs.1,69,70,854/-: The ld.CIT

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)

36(1)(va) on account of delayed contribution to provident fund. Apart from this, the assessee also raised additional grounds, mentioned as below: a) Inclusion of Reliability Charge while computing Transfer Price for Power undertaking u/s 80IA b) Claim of deduction u's 80IA on eligible Solid Waste Management System as per Form 10CCB filed alongwith return of income

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

pricing study. In view of the afore-noted discussion and the ratio of the these precedents, we direct the AO / TPO to examine the correctness of the figures placed on record by the assessee in support of its contention that the case of Goldstone Teleservices Limited was wrongly included by it in the list of comparables, which is actually

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

price through fictitious invoices in the name of the parties mentioned in the letter. 3.4 In response to the Final Show cause notice the A/R of the assessee filed written submission on 23rd Dec., 2016. The assessee contended that the address taken from purchase bills has been supplied, further, during the year in some of the cases the amount

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

III, Chennai Vs. Metal & Chromium Plater Private Limited reported at 76 taxmann.com 229 (Madras) has held that \"6. The allowance or otherwise of the claim under Section 54AC has to be seen in the context of the provisions of Section 115JB which is a self contained code of assessment. The levy of tax is on the 'book profits' after effecting