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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

46. Deduction under Section 80IA, 80IC etc. reflect specific and clear intention of legislature to grant tax holiday in respect of specified business in those sections for a tenure of 10 years. The said decision of the Government to give tax holiday in deserving cases cannot be abrogated or compromised by a technical interpretation of provisions of section 115JB

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.

46. Deduction under Section 80IA, 80IC etc. reflect specific and clear intention of legislature to grant tax holiday in respect of specified business in those sections for a tenure of 10 years. The said decision of the Government to give tax holiday in deserving cases cannot be abrogated or compromised by a technical interpretation of provisions of section 115JB

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.

46. Deduction under Section 80IA, 80IC etc. reflect specific and clear intention of legislature to grant tax holiday in respect of specified business in those sections for a tenure of 10 years. The said decision of the Government to give tax holiday in deserving cases cannot be abrogated or compromised by a technical interpretation of provisions of section 115JB

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

transfer power directly to the ultimate industrial consumer i.e. the manufacturing units of assessee.\n30.13. Further, the aspect as to why rate at which power is sold to 3rd parties including Power distribution companies should not be considered as internal CUP and hence considered for computing arm's length price under the Transfer Pricing regulations, needs to be dealt with

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 made by the learned assessing officer is not sustainable. (xi) ITAT Delhi in the case of M/S SMR Automotive Systems India Ltd. Versus Addl. CIT Special Range-8, Delhi LTA No.6614/Del/2017 Dated:- 3-4 2021 reported in 021 (6) TMI 449-ITAT DELHI. (Case law Paper Book page 105-112) M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Determination

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 made by the learned assessing officer is not sustainable. (xi) ITAT Delhi in the case of M/S SMR Automotive Systems India Ltd. Versus Addl. CIT Special Range-8, Delhi LTA No.6614/Del/2017 Dated:- 3-4 2021 reported in 021 (6) TMI 449-ITAT DELHI. (Case law Paper Book page 105-112) M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. Determination

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

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

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

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

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)

transfer price of power adopted by the assessee in the said case. The Ld. D/R had nothing to defend against the aforesaid contention of the assessee. 8.4 Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the coordinate bench of the Jodhpur Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc (supra), we are of the view that reliability charge @15% of Grid rate

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

transfer price of power. We further, from the facts of the \nassessee’s case as stated above, where there is both exclusivity \n(resulting in huge capex for single user) advantage and \nuninterrupted power supply, we on facts, agree with the assessee’s \nclaim that Rs. 1.50/unit is the minimum reliability surcharge at \narm’s length principles. As regards

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER vs. WONDER CEMENT LTD, MADANGANJ-KISHANGARH

In the result Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) u/s. 92CA (3) of the Act amounting to Rs. 46, 16, 39,395/-. On this issue, as per the Act, the 'market value' is the price at which transaction is undertaken between two independent persons in uncontrolled condition. In the state of Rajasthan, electricity is supplied by State Electricity Companies only, M/s. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

46. A perusal of the assessment orders would reveal that as regards the assessment years under consideration 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, the Assessing Officer held that the claim of the assessee regarding the said expenses and deductions was not admissible. He so observed in view of the fact that the decision by the Coordinate Bench, ITAT, Jaipur

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

46. A perusal of the assessment orders would reveal that as regards the assessment years under consideration 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, the Assessing Officer held that the claim of the assessee regarding the said expenses and deductions was not admissible. He so observed in view of the fact that the decision by the Coordinate Bench, ITAT, Jaipur

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

46. A perusal of the assessment orders would reveal that as regards the assessment years under consideration 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, the Assessing Officer held that the claim of the assessee regarding the said expenses and deductions was not admissible. He so observed in view of the fact that the decision by the Coordinate Bench, ITAT, Jaipur

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

section 115QA of Act and therefore, the company is liable to pay tax \non the distributed income of Rs.71,99,99,211/-. \n\n3.7 Based on these observations, ld. AO prepared the draft order dated \n26/09/2023 proposing the following additions: \n\n\nParticulars \nAddition (Rs.) \nTransfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA Rs.1,37,27,79,147/- \nLate deposit of PF amount

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)

Transfer Price of Power for the purpose of deduction u/s 80-1A of the Act and therefore, same was rightly rejected by the Ld. CIT(A). However, Hon'ble ITAT has allowed the same without giving an opportunity of being heard to the Assessing Officer. There is no reference to any remand report being sought on additional grounds

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

46,53,648/- made by the AO u/s 92C of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in not appreciating the fact that assessee’s claim is self contradictory. On one hand assessee is claiming that the average sale price of AE is better

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section. 23. Following the decision of this Court, in the case of Ambadi Enterprises Ltd. (supra), wherein it is held as follows:— "The Tribunal has also found that the land had not been developed earlier and that the investment made by the assessee in the year 1968 was only by way of investment and not to treat the lands