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

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

section 115QA of Act and therefore, the company is liable to pay tax on the distributed income of Rs. 71,99,99,211/-. 3.7 Based on these observations, ld. AO prepared the draft order dated 26/09/2023 proposing the following additions: | Transfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA | Rs. 1,37,27,79

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

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)

79 (Mum.), Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal held that capital receipts which do not constitute income under the Act cannot be brought to tax net by employing the mechanism of section 115JB. The Tribunal further held that section 115JB has not intended to bring all non-income items within the domain of the Act. • In Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. -vs.- Asstt

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

transfer price of power. We further, from the facts of the \nassessee’s case as stated above, where there is both exclusivity \n(resulting in huge capex for single user) advantage and \nuninterrupted power supply, we on facts, agree with the assessee’s \nclaim that Rs. 1.50/unit is the minimum reliability surcharge at \narm’s length principles. As regards

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

section 115QA of Act and therefore, the company is liable to pay tax \non the distributed income of Rs.71,99,99,211/-. \n\n3.7 Based on these observations, ld. AO prepared the draft order dated \n26/09/2023 proposing the following additions: \n\n\nParticulars \nAddition (Rs.) \nTransfer pricing adjustment u/s 92CA Rs.1,37,27,79,147/- \nLate deposit of PF amount

KOTHARI JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 145(3) of the Act. Regarding estimation of GP rate, the AO observed that under no circumstances, can gold and other precious metals be sold at below market price and this clearly shows that in the instant case, the assessee has not reflected true GP on its sale by stock transfer to its sister concerns and as per discussion

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 of Power for the purpose of Deduction u/s 80- IA in respect to its eligible power undertakings. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, necessary direction may be given to the A.O. to allow the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA on eligible Solid Waste Management System as per Form 10CCB filed along with

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

SHARAD KUMAR BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

79,660/- made\nunder section 69 of the Act.\nFACTUAL BACKDROP\n1.\nThat the humble assessee is an Individual and is a non-resident Indian living\noutside India for past more than 40 years. He is regularly filing his return of\nincome from year to year of the income earned and taxable in India as per the\nprovisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES 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 RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) 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 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

M/SO. COLUMBUS OVERSEAS LLP,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

79,654/-. The Learned CIT(A) has rejected the claim of the assessee by mentioning that effect of excess interest expenses has not been given in total expenditure claimed in profit and loss account. In this regard our submission is that the assessee is showing profit on percentage completion method and the cost of WIP and Stock has been reduced

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

transfer\npricing orders wherein downward adjustments were made to the price\npaid for the equipment imported by the AE. The Assessee had filed an\nappeal to this Tribunal against the appellate order for Assessment Year\n2013-14 (arising from the assessment under Section 143(3) and the TPO\norder). This appeal was disposed in RKM POWERGEN PRIVATE\nLIMITED

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

price', is ab- initio void as per the provisions of sec.23of the Contracts Act, 1872 and thus non- est in the eyes of law. Hence, such SBNs cannot be treated as having arisen out of a contract for sale…….” It is held by the Hon'ble ITAT as under:- “70. From the reading of the above notification, it is abundantly

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transferred under sub-section (8)], on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, shall be non est if such assessment is not made in accordance with the procedure laid down under this section." (emphasis supplied) 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in submitting that Section

HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

79/-. The assessment was completed vide order under section 143(3) dated 18/10/2018 at a total income of Rs. 22,97,14,97/-. 2. The said order was set aside by ld. PCIT assuming jurisdiction under section 263 vide order dated 30/3/2021. The present appeal is against the said order u/s 263. 3. The case of the assessee was picked