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 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

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 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

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

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

4-1985, the extended meaning of the word ‘transfer’ was applicable in respect of such conversion. However, capital gain could not be computed unless such stock-in-trade was sold or otherwise transferred. The gain arose only on sale or transfer otherwise. It did not amount to giving retrospective effect to the 17 Pradeep Vatrana, Alwar vs. DCIT, Alwar statutes

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.”

45 r.w.s. 48 by invoking the rule that there cannot be any tax on notional receipt.” In view of the facts as above and judicial decision the appellant has clearly not fulfilled the requirements of the provisions of 54B and the 8 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO deduction disallowed by the AO is confirmed. Ground of appeal is dismissed

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

45,11,000/- | 17.37% | | Other Unrelated Parties | 244,68,96,000/- | 82.63% | | Total | 296,14,07,000/- | 100.00% | 3. Following tables summarizes the results of the economic analysis relied upon by the appellant: | International Transaction | Assessee's GP/COP | Arm's Length Price (Three Year Weighted Average of Comparable) | | | |------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--| | Sales of gem stones, studded Jewellery and other product

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

45 to 55 of the IT Act. Similarly, section 11(1A) of the IT Act provides the exemption and this exemption is only for the purpose of application of the net consideration for acquiring the new capital asset being the property held under Trust. Thus the provisions of section 50C become irrelevant or inapplicable once the actual consideration/net consideration received

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

transfer pricing adjustment u/s 80IA. 4. That the appellant craves to add, amend, alter, delete or modify any or all the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. As it is evident that four years are under dispute by the assessee and by revenue and we start from the assessment year 2015-16 first

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)

45,50,59,944/-, - Reduction in claim u/s 80IA on Water Treatment System on account of transfer pricing adjustment of water (Rs. 14,68,08,695/-, - Reduction in claim u/s 80IA on Rail System due to modification in transfer price of logistic services (Rs. 36,32,56,010/-, - Disallowance of Sales Tax Subsidy (Rs. 62,29,26,819/-) and Electricity

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

transfer pricing adjustment u/s 80IA 4. That the appellant craves to add, amend, alter, delete or modify any or all the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. As it is evident that four years are under dispute by the assessee and by revenue and we start from the assessment year 2015-16 first

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

transfer pricing adjustment u/s 80IA. 4. That the appellant craves to add, amend, alter, delete or modify any or all the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. As it is evident that four years are under dispute by the assessee and by revenue and we start from the assessment year 2015-16 first

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)

4. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has reiterated his submissions as submitted before the lower authorities. The assessee has submitted its written submissions as under :- “ Issues Involved: Omission of transactions covered under-section 40A(2)(b) of the Act from the ambit of Specified Domestic Transactions. 1. We submit that the transfer pricing adjustment has been made

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)

4. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has reiterated his submissions as submitted before the lower authorities. The assessee has submitted its written submissions as under :- “ Issues Involved: Omission of transactions covered under-section 40A(2)(b) of the Act from the ambit of Specified Domestic Transactions. 1. We submit that the transfer pricing adjustment has been made

M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alone should not be the basis, for arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. If the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961, have to be conferred with the power, to be exercised, solely on the basis of a statement, then it may lead to an arbitrary exercise of such

NITIN KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alone should not be the basis, for arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. If the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961, have to be conferred with the power, to be exercised, solely on the basis of a statement, then it may lead to an arbitrary exercise of such

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alone should not be the basis, for arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. If the authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961, have to be conferred with the power, to be exercised, solely on the basis of a statement, then it may lead to an arbitrary exercise of such

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

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

transfer pricing authority had to compute arms length price of the impugned loan transactions. We observe in these peculiar facts that once the assessee has included all the relevant particulars, the mere fact that it did not benchmark its loan transactions at arm’s length resulting in the impugned upward adjustment would not form the sole ground to invoke