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

section 271(1) of the Act. In cases involving international transactions entered into by the assessee, any transfer pricing adjustments where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income, the legislature has thus envisaged applicability of one or both of these charges. Deeming fiction so provided doesn’t mean in all cases where the transfer pricing adjustment

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

section 37(1), r.w.s. 40(a)(ii) of the Act and therefore, the amount of Rs.3,06,59,279/- claimed by the assessee as allowable deduction disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 3.3 During the scrutiny proceedings, the case was referred to the TPO for determination of Arm’s Length price with reference to all international

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

section 37(1), r.w.s. 40(a)(ii) of the Act and therefore, the amount of Rs.3,06,59,279/- claimed by the assessee as allowable deduction disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee.\n3.3 During the scrutiny proceedings, the case was referred to the TPO for determination of Arm’s Length price with reference to all international

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 37(1), r.w.s. 40(a)(ii) of the Act and therefore, the amount of Rs.3,06,59,279/- claimed by the assessee as allowable deduction disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 3.3 During the scrutiny proceedings, the case was referred to the TPO for determination of Arm’s Length price with reference to all international

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 37(1), r.w.s. 40(a)(ii) of the Act and therefore, the amount of Rs.3,06,59,279/- claimed by the assessee as allowable deduction disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 3.3 During the scrutiny proceedings, the case was referred to the TPO for determination of Arm’s Length price with reference to all international

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

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

transfer entry in accounts. No benefit obtained. Section 41(1) was not applicable. (P.B. 1 to 7 of II) (2) CIT Vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 408 (Del): Remission or cessation of trading liability. Scope of sec. 41. Liability to 15 ITA 267/JP/2020_ ITO Vs Amit Agarwal creditors outstanding for more than four years. Liability shown

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavvaibhav Global Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम Jaipur. Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacv4679F

section 144C(13) of the Act was passed by the Assessing officer on 13.11.2019 wherein adjustment on account of transfer pricing as proposed by the Transfer Pricing Officer was made and the assessed income was determined at Rs.57,36,47,429/-. 3. Against the draft assessment order, the assessee filed its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel and after considering

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

section 37(1),\nr.w.s. 40(a)(ii) of the Act and therefore, the amount of\nRs.3,06,59,279/- claimed by the assessee as allowable deduction\ndisallowed and added back to the income of the assessee.\n3.3 During the scrutiny proceedings, the case was referred to the\nTPO for determination of Arm’s Length price with reference to all\ninternational

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

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 :

Transfer 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 :

Transfer 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 :

Transfer 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 :

Transfer 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

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

37 and 38 of his order. Based on that \nobservations ld. Ao noted that the excel sheet is true and correct account \nprepared by Gokul Kripa Group for expenditure incurred by them for \npurchase of land. As, the transactions made through banking channel are \nduly corroborated with the bank statements making it amply clear that the \ntransactions made in cash

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)

1 to section 115JB(2) of the Act and for that he referred the memorandum to Finance Bill 2018 which clearly states that Education Cess 35 Shree Cement Limited vs. ACIT and Secondary and Higher Secondary Education cess has been discontinued and new cess Health and Education Cess came to substitute and submitted that there is no corresponding amendment brought

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27\nof 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such\nreference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing\nOfficer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act.\n[Explanation 1]. —For the purposes of this section, \"Valuation Officer\" shall\nhave the same meaning

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transfer upon Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General of National e- Assessment Centre and not upon any other Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. As is evident from the above, the Court came to the firm conclusion that irrespective of the system of faceless assessment that