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

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

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

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

transfer pricing \nadjustment u/s 80IA.\n4. That the appellant craves to add, amend, alter, delete or modify any or \nall the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.\nAs it is evident that four years are under dispute by the assessee \nand by revenue and we start from the assessment year 2015-16 \nfirst

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)

73,206/-, made by the Assessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club expenses. Loans and advances Department has also challenged deletion of addition of Rs. 10,09,101/- that was made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of amount of loans and advances to subsidiary/group companies. Disallowance of contribution to DAV trust management society Department

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)

73,206/-, made by the Assessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club expenses. Loans and advances Department has also challenged deletion of addition of Rs. 10,09,101/- that was made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of amount of loans and advances to subsidiary/group companies. Disallowance of contribution to DAV trust management society Department

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)

73,206/-, made by the Assessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club expenses. Loans and advances Department has also challenged deletion of addition of Rs. 10,09,101/- that was made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of amount of loans and advances to subsidiary/group companies. Disallowance of contribution to DAV trust management society Department

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

73,206/-, made by the\nAssessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club\nexpenses.\nLoans and advances\nDepartment has also challenged deletion of addition of Rs.\n10,09,101/- that was made by the Assessing Officer on account of\ndisallowance of amount of loans and advances to subsidiary/group\ncompanies.\nDisallowance of contribution to DAV trust management society\nDepartment

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

73,206/-, made by the\nAssessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club\nexpenses.\nLoans and advances\nDepartment has also challenged deletion of addition of Rs.\n10,09,101/- that was made by the Assessing Officer on account of\ndisallowance of amount of loans and advances to subsidiary/group\ncompanies.\nDisallowance of contribution to DAV trust management society\nDepartment

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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)

73,077/-. The levy of additional tax or Surcharge was introduced for the first time by the Finance Act of 2004 Chapter II of the said Act pertains to Rates of Income Tax and Section 2(11) covers the levy of "cess" for the first time under the "Chapter: Rates of Income Tax". A careful reading of the same which

ARUN PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL),, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

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 of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

ZARI SILK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

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 of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

73(AP) held the action of AO cannot be said be marred by any perversity and the revisional order was set aside. 13.2 Taking into account the entire conspectus of the matter, we thus find merit in this plea. The pre- requisites of S. 263 are clearly not found to be fulfilled. 14. We shall now also turn to other

NEERU MOHAN NAGPAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD 2(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

73,500/- was not totally\ncorrect. This property was purchased by the assessee for an actual\nconsideration of Rs: 84,50,587/- (excluding the amount of interest from\nthe value shown in statement of account dated 08.07.2014 submitted as\nAnnexure \"K\"). From the perusal of unit buyers' agreement (Annexure\n\"J\") it appears that no formal transfer of this property

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

price as on 18.06.2015 Rs. 27,89,92,000/- Less:- Cost of acquisition 903892*1081/223= Rs. 43,81,647/- Rs. 87,96,055/- 430619*1081/244= Rs. 19,07,783/- 221058*1081/259= Rs. 9,22,640/- 570000*1081/389= Rs. 15,83,985/- Long term capital gain Rs. 27,01,95,945/- From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

price as on 18.06.2015 Rs. 27,89,92,000/- Less:- Cost of acquisition 903892*1081/223= Rs. 43,81,647/- Rs. 87,96,055/- 430619*1081/244= Rs. 19,07,783/- 221058*1081/259= Rs. 9,22,640/- 570000*1081/389= Rs. 15,83,985/- Long term capital gain Rs. 27,01,95,945/- From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee