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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

transfer power directly to the ultimate industrial consumer i.e. the manufacturing units of assessee. 30.13. 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

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

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

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

LAL CHAND MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

price do not arise for consideration. Hence, considering the legislative intent of section 45(3) vis-a-vis sec. 50C, it is incorrect to held that sec. 50C would override section 45(3). 7.6 It is further submitted that by Finance Bill, 2016, Sec. 50C is proposed to be amended w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to provide that where the date

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

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)

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

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)

Price Water House & Co LLP. It has prepared projected financial performance. The CFCL Ventures Limited, Cayman Islands has o34 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota declared net profit of Rs. 532.53 lakh after taxation for the AY 2017-18 which has been reported in form number AOC-1 at page number

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)

Price Water House & Co LLP. It has prepared projected financial performance. The CFCL Ventures Limited, Cayman Islands has o34 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota declared net profit of Rs. 532.53 lakh after taxation for the AY 2017-18 which has been reported in form number AOC-1 at page number

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)

Price Water House & Co LLP. It has prepared projected financial performance. The CFCL Ventures Limited, Cayman Islands has o34 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota declared net profit of Rs. 532.53 lakh after taxation for the AY 2017-18 which has been reported in form number AOC-1 at page number

KOTHARI JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961, merely on the ground that the appellant company should have sold its total stock of goods to its sister concern at arm’s length price and not at mutually agreed price.” 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income

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)

54,84,500/- calculated by Ld. A.O. on the date of survey). (iii). That in QUESTION No. 4, the Ld. A.O. asked clarification on difference of cost of construction of Rs. 22,62,143/- (I.e. Total Cost of construction Rs. 92,27,000 – Amount recorded in Books of accounts Rs. 69,64,857/-). (iv). That in response to the above

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 paid for acquiring the rights of land and not the land itself and the ownership of the land vests with the lessor of the land. The lessee is liable to return the land to its original owner after the expiry of the lease and does not have ownership rights over the land. On such facts, courts have held that

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.”

54 and 54EC. As observed above as per Section 45 r.w.s 48 whole of the consideration, received or accrued has to be taxed. Every person is supposed to know the law and if the transaction is structured in such a way for the transfer of capital asset that some of the consideration would be received later then such person

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

transfer of capital asset, since depends on appreciation of facts............” 17 Shri Mahaveer Yadav, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-1(5) Alwar I have found that the present case is distinguished from facts of the case decided by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court judgment. In the present case it is not only the mere sale and purchase of lands

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

price of such\ndocument is Rs. 5,57,69,640/- which has been considered as the purchases\nprice of the property acquired by the AO while making the impugned addition.\nThe Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sanjiv Lal vs. CIT 365 ITR 389 while\nconsidering the question as to whether the date on which agreement for sale

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

54 and indexation on cost of improvement, work out the long term capital gain. 2.11 Without prejudice to above, it was submitted by the ld AR during the course of hearing that even if it is held that assessee has converted 8 Pradeep Vatrana, Alwar vs. DCIT, Alwar his land into stock in trade, its taxability would be governed

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion se the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner, - (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

54 of the IT Act or not. The ld. A/R has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Vimal Chand Golecha, 201 ITR 442 (Raj.) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under :- “Land is a capital asset in terms of section 2(14) of the Act and, in accordance