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)

40A" We submit that section 92BA was inserted by Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1.4.2013. However clause (i) referred above was omitted by the Finance Act 2017 with effect from 01.04.2017. Accordingly we submit that the Transfer pricing adjustment made in the instant case is liable to be deleted, since clause (i) of section 92BA shall be deemed

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)

40A" We submit that section 92BA was inserted by Finance Act 2012 with effect from 1.4.2013. However clause (i) referred above was omitted by the Finance Act 2017 with effect from 01.04.2017. Accordingly we submit that the Transfer pricing adjustment made in the instant case is liable to be deleted, since clause (i) of section 92BA shall be deemed

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

40a(ia) of Rs.34,18,126/- holding that assessee was using services of overseas commission agent for procuring export orders and not for providing managerial/technical services attracting TDS- Held, assessee firm paid export commission of Rs. 34,18,126/- to foreign agents for rendering services abroad in relation to sourcing of export orders and for collecting payments on behalf

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)

40A, while the non-obstante clause of Section 115JB(1) is only and only in respect of subsection (1) of Section 115JB. Further, explanation 1 below Sec. 115JB(2) defines ‘book profit’. There is no non obstantive clause in the said provisions. It is very important to note that there is no non-obstantive clause to sub-section

KOTHARI JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

40A; (ii) any transaction referred to in section 80A; (iii) any transfer of goods or services referred to in sub-section (8) of section 80-IA; (iv) any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub-section (10) of section 80-IA; (v) any transaction, referred to in any other section under Chapter

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

9 M/s. Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 2, Jaipur 1. Trading addition 53097994 27141136 25956858 2. Disallowance u/s 40A(3) of 68329399 67994307 335092 Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Disallowance u/s 40 (a) (ia) 699228 217614 481614 of Income Tax Act, 1961 4. Addition u/s 68 of Income 7000000 7000000 0 Tax Act, 1961 on account

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, JAIPUR 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

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

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, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, TILAK NAGAR JPR

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, JAIPUR 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

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

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

40A(2)(b) of the Act, which is confirmed. However, as pointed out by the appellant in his submissions, apparently, there is a calculation mistake in the assessment order; thus, interests should have been computed on Rs.1,68,60,000/- @12% amounting to Rs.20,2,3200/-. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs.20,23,200/-is confirmed instead of Rs.21

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

9,95,89,845/-\nIn this A.Y. provision was also made for mine closure cost of Jalipa mines at\nRs.5.77 crores.\n46. All the above amount was deposited in the escrow account maintained with\nPNB (PB 110-118). The AO disallowed the claim of mine closure cost by making the\nfollowing observations:-\n(i) The amount deposited in the Escrow

RITIKA VEGETABLE OIL PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) Against The Order Dated 21.12.2018 Passed Under Section 143(3)Of The Income Tax Act, By Acit, Central Circle, Alwar [ For Short Ao].

40A during the year under consideration. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer Pricing Officer 2(3)(2), New Delhi passed order u/s 92CA(3) of the Act on 31/10/2018 wherein no adverse inference has been drawn in 3 Ritika Vegetable Oil Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT respect of the Specified Domestic Transactions undertaken by the assessee company during

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

9 (PB: 41) of the submissions made before her. Thus, the valuation of the shares adopted by the assessee company was in accordance with law and was, therefore, rightly accepted by the ld. AO, during the course of assessment proceedings.” 11. In addition to the above written arguments the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that one of the agencies

SHRI DEEPAK KHANNA,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

9. As regards the introduction of capital the ld. AR of the assessee drawn our attention to his paper book wherein the assessee has submitted the details of the capital introduced in the capital account along with the source of the said capital account on 17.07.2018, 01.08.2018, 31.08.2018 along with the ledger account and contra confirmations. As the proceeding were