AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

transferred to M/s NavBharat Nirman Co.(JV) and it will be taken back (Issue \nalready discussed supra). Moreover, this page was never confronted either to the \nassessee or Shri Verma, during the course of search or assessment. So, the \naddition sustained by CIT(A) u/s 56(2)(vii) does not get supported either by Shri \nVerma’s statements

HOLIDAY TRIANGLE TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 56(2)(viib) and has valued the price of share by following DFCF method. 4. The ld. CIT`s contention that the valuer has very categorically mentioned in the report that they have not verified the authenticity of the financials provided by the assessee which makes the report baseless is incorrect as the mentioning of the lines

NAINA SARAF,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 271/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Cuke Naina Saraf, Pr.Cit-2, Vs. B-93, Surya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aevps 4665 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

price of the flat was 70,26,233/-. The said flat was registered was in the year 2014 and for stamp duty purpose the value of the property for the year 2014 was taken. It is further submitted that as the assesse has purchased the flat the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) are not applicable

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

56(2) (viib) of the Act is included in definition of section 2(24) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013. Therefore, the provisions of these sections cannot be made applicable prior to A.Y. 2013-14. (vii) Reliance is placed on the judgement dated 30.10.2017 of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s. Motisons Buildtech

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

56(2) (viib) of the Act is included in definition of section 2(24) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013. Therefore, the provisions of these sections cannot be made applicable prior to A.Y. 2013-14. (vii) Reliance is placed on the judgement dated 30.10.2017 of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s. Motisons Buildtech

M/S NABH MULTITRADE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

price, then no addition is called for under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. This Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ramehwaram Strong Glass (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) has considered this issue of adopting the prescribed method at the choice of the assessee in para 4.5 as under :- 12 M/s. Nabh Multitrade Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. “4.5 We have

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)

vii) M/s. Sobha City vs. ACIT Circle 1(2)(2) Bangalore (ITA No.2936/Bang/20180) AY 2014-15 (Case law Paper Book page 38-53) Hon'ble Tribunal relied upon the decision in the case of M/S. Cauvery Aqua Pvt. Ltd., decision of Hon'ble Karnatak High Court in the case of Texport Overseas (P.) Ltd, and several other decisions mentioned

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)

vii) M/s. Sobha City vs. ACIT Circle 1(2)(2) Bangalore (ITA No.2936/Bang/20180) AY 2014-15 (Case law Paper Book page 38-53) Hon'ble Tribunal relied upon the decision in the case of M/S. Cauvery Aqua Pvt. Ltd., decision of Hon'ble Karnatak High Court in the case of Texport Overseas (P.) Ltd, and several other decisions mentioned

RAMESHWARAM STRONG GLASS (P.) LTD.,AJMER vs. ITO, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

price to premium in the business. In fact, all these are not possible in the case of newly startup/set up company being in existence of 8-10 years. 14. AY 2013-14 is not the rightful year: Alternatively and without prejudice to the above contention, even assuming it is held that the revenue is justified in their action, a careful

RAJASTHAN TRANSMAT PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 7(2),, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MEETHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 56(2)(vii)(b) was applicable from assessment year 2013-14. In this regard, CBDT Instruction No. 2/2015 dated 29-1-2015 is clear on the issue in which it has been held that premium on share issued was on account of capital account transaction and does not give rise to income. The Board's Instruction is reproduced

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

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

56 ITR 20 (SC): TC39R. 1098 and Carborandum Co. US. CIT 1977 CTR (SC) 209: (1977) 108 ITR 335 (SC): TC39R.1145 relied on." 32 DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur VS M/s. JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur 8.6 DIT (International Taxation) vs. credit Lyonnais (2016) 95 CCH 0141 Mum HC: "Business Expenditure-Interest, commission, brokerage etc. to a resident-Non applicability

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)

56,08,94,534/-, made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of interest , u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Club Expenses o6 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota Department has also challenged the impugned order whereby Learned CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 16,25,226/-, made by the Assessing

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)

56,08,94,534/-, made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of interest , u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Club Expenses o6 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota Department has also challenged the impugned order whereby Learned CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 16,25,226/-, made by the Assessing

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)

56,08,94,534/-, made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of interest , u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Club Expenses o6 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota Department has also challenged the impugned order whereby Learned CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 16,25,226/-, made by the Assessing

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

vii. Refund Claim viii. Payment to related persons mismatch ix. Deduction under Chapter VI-A x. Deduction for scientific research xi. Other income not credited to P & L a/c xii. Mismatch in Income/Capital Gain on sale of land or building xiii. Loans/advance to related persons Consequently, a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 08.04.2016 electronically

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