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

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

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)

x) ITO,Bhubaneshwar v. Ashoka Industries Ltd. (2020) 120 taxmann.com 214 (Cuttack-Trib.) xi) ACIT v. Safe Decore (P) Ltd. (2018) 90 taxmann.com 161 (Jaipur- Trib.) On the other hand, the decision relied upon by the CIT (A), i.e., ITO, Hyderabad v. M/s. Quark Enterprises P. Ltd., ITA 1270/Hyd/2019 is based on different facts, and so, is not applicable

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

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)

56,88,968 Adjusted Profit 4,09,19,882 2,52,91,655 M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. before tax (A) Profit before tax 90,48,708 90,48,708 as reported (B) Adjustment (A-B) 3,18,71,174 1,62,42,947 Actual Price 98,93,88,204 98,93,88,204 undertaken by Assessee

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)

56,88,968 Adjusted Profit 4,09,19,882 2,52,91,655 M/s. Worship Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. before tax (A) Profit before tax 90,48,708 90,48,708 as reported (B) Adjustment (A-B) 3,18,71,174 1,62,42,947 Actual Price 98,93,88,204 98,93,88,204 undertaken by Assessee

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

x \nIn the present case also in course of search proceedings, statement of \nassessee was recorded under section 132(4) admitting certain undisclosed \nincome. Subsequently, assessee retracted said statement. In course of \nassessment, Assessing Officer made addition to assessee's income on basis of \nstatement given by the assessee. It is a fact that statement had been recorded in \npresence

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

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

x 10000 shares) against which the assessee charged premium of Rs 84,00,000/-. Thus the excess premium of Rs 81,72,400/- received by the assessee is not justified and not in accordance with the amended provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the I.T. Act.” Consequently, the excess premium of Rs. 81,72,400 received by the assessee

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

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

x Thus in view of provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii), the difference between stamp duty value and purchase consideration was required to be added as income from other sources. It is noted in this case that there was no agreement for sale as such and the sale deed/ conveyance deed was entered into on 09.12.2014 and therefore

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)

56, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122001. 2. That a Survey u/s. 133A of the I.T. Act, 1961 was carried out by Income Tax Department officials on 28.08.2018 at the business premises of assessee. That the statement of appellant is recorded 2 times. 1st statement was 3. recorded on 28.08.2018 (i.e. during survey) and second statement was recorded on 04.09.2018 (i.e. Post Survey

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

X containing section 61 to 63 contain the powers to levy certain charges including levy of conversion charges annual levy on vacant land etc. This power thus clearly empowers the JDA to have control and management of local fund. Section 58 of JDA Act provides that accounts of JDA shall be subject to audit by Local Fund Audit in accordance

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

X containing section 61 to 63 contain the powers to levy certain charges including levy of conversion charges annual levy on vacant land etc. This power thus clearly empowers the JDA to have control and management of local fund. Section 58 of JDA Act provides that accounts of JDA shall be subject to audit by Local Fund Audit in accordance

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

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 and served upon assessee through email. Further notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated

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

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

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

x) of the Income Tax Act. Particular Amount Collected from Due date of Actual date of deposit employees (in Rs.) depositing PF 87,093 15.07.2016 19.07.2016 5 Castamet Works Private Limited vs. PCIT PF 1,01,548 15.01.2017 20.01.2017 ESI 11,261 21.09.2016 18.11.2016 ESI 11,742 21.10.2016 18.11.2016 ESI 20,037 21.01.2017 23.01.2017 Total 2,31,681/- Thus