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

RAJESH CHOUDHARY,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer pricing adjustment. 2. It is hereby informed that the Board has accepted the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the above mentioned Writ Petition. In view of the acceptance of the above judgment, it is directed that the ratio decidendi of the judgment must be adhered to by the field officers in all cases where this issue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer pricing adjustment. 2. It is hereby informed that the Board has accepted the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the above mentioned Writ Petition. In view of the acceptance of the above judgment, it is directed that the ratio decidendi of the judgment must be adhered to by the field officers in all cases where this issue

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

section 14A(1), deduction of that expenditure is not to be allowed which has been incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. Axiomatically, it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is includible in total income that

UTTAM BHARAT ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Study Analysis and claimed that as per the Internal CUP of payment of interest to the unrelated parties, the assessee is paying average interest and brokerage amounting to 15.36%. The assessee claimed that the Specified Domestic Transaction interest to the related parties at 15% is at Arm’s Length. The TPO has proceeded to adopt External

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

transfer charges, regularisation charges and restoration charges are income derived from the development and operation of Industrial park/SEZ unit. 4.8 Further, other miscellaneous income which comprises of site plan charges, lease agreement form, road cutting charges, penalty recovered from contractor etc., are directly linked with the activity of the developing, maintaining and operating of Industrial park and therefore, on these

ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. M/S RAJASTHAN STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

transferred to ITO, Ward-6(2), jaipur on 02.05.2022. Hence there was delay of one month in commencement of processing of central scrutiny report and appeal effect order for the relevant appeal order. ii) During the month of May-2022, large number of case(s) were received to JAo from Faceless Assessment Unit in compliance of Hon’ble supreme court

MANJEET SINGH DUGGAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, ground of assessee’s appeal is dismissed

transfer being 30.01.2012, expiring only on 31.01.2014) whereas, the assessee had incurred total cost much prior thereto. The investment of Rs.1.48 Cr was already made up to 07.06.2012 and further 7 ITA 177 & 202/JP/2017_ Manjeet Singh Duggal Vs ACIT cost of Rs.30,05,000/- was incurred up to 30.09.2012 totaling to Rs.1.78 Cr with the prescribed period of two years

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

transferred to theAOof theother person on the date ofrecordingofsatisfactionby the commonAO. Since, the Revenue has not producedthesatisfactionnoterecordedby the commonAOin this case, one can only presume thatsatisfactionwasrecordedimmediately prior to the issue of notice under Section 153C of the Act. As per standard practice of the Department the notice u/s 153C is issued immediately after recording of satisfaction. v) Therefore, the whole

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

transferred to theAOof theother person on the date ofrecordingofsatisfactionby the commonAO. Since, the Revenue has not producedthesatisfactionnoterecordedby the commonAOin this case, one can only presume thatsatisfactionwasrecordedimmediately prior to the issue of notice under Section 153C of the Act. As per standard practice of the Department the notice u/s 153C is issued immediately after recording of satisfaction. v) Therefore, the whole

RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

transferable. The Normal land can be mortgaged and owner can avail loan on it, whereas in the case of wasting mining land, the assessee can neither mortgage these lands nor can avail loan on it. Therefore, the cost incurred for acquiring these lands is only for extracting the mineral which needs to be amortized over its useful life

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

transfer of cash to such unexplained advances. If the undisclosed income earned and accumulated over the years is taxed in the year in which it is detected by the Revenue and the same is merely taxed as per normal provisions of the law such an interpretation will place a premium on dishonesty i.e. it tantamounts to rewarding the dishonesty. There

AMAR PRATAP STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

43B. Hon'ble Apex Court brought rest to all these disputes by its recent judgement in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd Vs CIT-1 [448 ITR 518] and clearly held that any employees contributions of PF & ESI paid beyond due dates of the concerned authorities are not allowable as expenditure. By respectfully following the above judgement, the ground