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)

transfer pricing adjustment was made in the present case in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act which reads as under :- “ (i) any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (2) of section 40A

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)

transfer pricing adjustment was made in the present case in pursuance of provisions of clause (i) of section 92BA of the Act which reads as under :- “ (i) any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (2) of section 40A

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

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 of alleged bogus share capital introduced through Kolkata based companies 5. Disallowance of expenses 5516 5516 0 naming bill premium 6. Disallowance

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. KISHORE SINGH GEHLOT HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

price by issuing credit note in favour of the customers and after deducting charges for registration, insurance and loan processing charges. Thus, the nature of refund is expenditure on account of discount allowed to the customers for different reasons. Any refund in cash of amount exceeding Rs. 20,000/- is in violation of provisions of section 40A

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

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

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

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

40A(2)(b) of the Act and even the show cause\nnotice is silent about that.\nIn our view, the Tribunal has not committed any perversity or applied incorrect\nprinciples to the given facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly\nanalysed and correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand, then, we do not\nthink that

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

price\nwhich includes component of mine closure charges, is not enough to hold that by\ndisallowing the mine closure cost there is no double taxation here.\n52. We are agreed with the contentions of the assessee that the liability\ndiscussed and mentioned (supra) are statutory liabilities and are unavoidable in\nnature, secondly the same has already been recovered

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].

Price as the assessee company was entered into Specified Domestic Transactions within the meaning of provisions of section 92BA of the Act with the person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 40A during the year under consideration. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Transfer

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalrashleela Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., C-5, Krishna Balram, Calgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017. Pan No.: Aadcr2594J ...... Appellant Vs.

40A] to an employee engaged in such scientific research or on the purchase of materials used in such scientific research, the aggregate of the expenditure so laid out or expended within the three years immediately preceding the commencement of the business shall, to the extent it is certified by the prescribed authority to have been laid out or expended