SHRI GOPI RAM SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-4, JAIPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

price cannot be taken into consideration where the cost of acquisition was not ascertainable. On the other hand, the Full Bench decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. Raja Malwinder Singh (supra) has held that even in a case where the cost of acquisition cannot be ascertained, section 55(3) prescribes the cost

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

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.”

pricing study. In view of the afore-noted discussion and the ratio of the these precedents, we direct the AO / TPO to examine the correctness of the figures placed on record by the assessee in support of its contention that the case of Goldstone Teleservices Limited was wrongly included by it in the list of comparables, which is actually

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

transfer of capital asset. Therefore, FMV of the asset on the date of conversion as reduced by the indexed cost of acquisition is required to be assessed under the head capital gain and excess over such FMV is required to be assessed as business income. The Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the provision of this section and also

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

transfer of shares from a resident to a non-resident”, whereas, in the present case, the shares were freshly issued by the assessee company. • As per the relevant regulations concerning the Any company engaged in the business of Real Foreign Direct Investment, any company Estate Development which is engaged in development of cannot issue shares and townships, construction of residential

PRADEEP VATRANA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

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

55 Taxmann.com 309 for the proposition that where assessee having purchased agricultural land, converted same into non-agriculture land and sold same within a short span of time on regular basis to companies, income earned by the assessee was taxable as business income. 4. The relevant findings of the ld CIT(A) which are under challenge before us reads

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.

55,18,397/-. These grounds are therefore allowed.” 4.3 On the issue of disallowance of Rs. 19,34,58,626/- out of the claim u/s. 80-IA on water treatment system on account of transfer pricing adjustment of water, the relevant fact is that the assessee has computed transfer price of water (Rs.3/ltr) for captive consumption. The price has been

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.

55,18,397/-. These grounds are therefore allowed.” 4.3 On the issue of disallowance of Rs. 19,34,58,626/- out of the claim u/s. 80-IA on water treatment system on account of transfer pricing adjustment of water, the relevant fact is that the assessee has computed transfer price of water (Rs.3/ltr) for captive consumption. The price has been

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

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

Section 92C(3) of the Act has not been satisfied. - 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO, Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the CPM considered by the appellant as the Most Appropriate Method with GP /COP as the PLI, without giving any cogent reason. - 3. Under

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

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

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

2. An application for the sanction of the Assistant Commissioner, under sub-section (1) shall be made in the prescribed manner and form. 3. Where, on the application duly made for sanction in respect ofany transaction specified in sub-section (1), the Assistant Commissioner does not, within two months of the receipt thereof, pass final orders, it shall be presumed

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

55,18,397/-. These grounds are therefore allowed.” 4.3 On the issue of disallowance of Rs. 19,34,58,626/- out of the claim u/s. 80-IA on water treatment system on account of transfer pricing adjustment of water, the relevant fact is that the assessee has computed transfer price of water (Rs.3/ltr) for captive consumption. The price has been

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

55,18,397/-. These grounds are therefore allowed.” 4.3 On the issue of disallowance of Rs. 19,34,58,626/- out of the claim u/s. 80-IA on water treatment system on account of transfer pricing adjustment of water, the relevant fact is that the assessee has computed transfer price of water (Rs.3/ltr) for captive consumption. The price has been

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

55,18,397/-. These grounds are therefore allowed.” 4.3 On the issue of disallowance of Rs. 19,34,58,626/- out of the claim u/s. 80-IA on water treatment system on account of transfer pricing adjustment of water, the relevant fact is that the assessee has computed transfer price of water (Rs.3/ltr) for captive consumption. The price has been

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 143(3) of the Act on 23.02.2018 by making various disallowances/additions to the returned income of the assessee as under :- - Reduction in claim u/s 80IA on power undertakings on account of transfer pricing adjustment of power (Rs. 2,89,07,63,321/-, - Reduction in claim u/s 80IA on Solid Waste Management System on account of transfer pricing adjustment