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.

90,55,18,397/-. 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

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.

90,55,18,397/-. 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

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)

90,51,790/- (PB page 2-5). The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer had made a reference under section 92CA to determine the Arms-length price in respect of the specified domestic transactions undertaken by the Appellant. The Transfer

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)

90,51,790/- (PB page 2-5). The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer had made a reference under section 92CA to determine the Arms-length price in respect of the specified domestic transactions undertaken by the Appellant. The Transfer

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

90,55,18,397/-. These grounds are\ntherefore allowed.”\n4.3 On the issue of disallowance of Rs. 19,34,58,626/- out of the\nclaim u/s. 80-IA on water treatment system on account of transfer\npricing adjustment of water, the relevant fact is that the assessee\nhas computed transfer price of water (Rs.3/ltr) for captive\nconsumption. The price

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

90,55,18,397/-. These grounds are \ntherefore allowed.”\n4.3 On the issue of disallowance of Rs. 19,34,58,626/- out of the \nclaim u/s. 80-IA on water treatment system on account of transfer \npricing adjustment of water, the relevant fact is that the assessee \nhas computed transfer price of water (Rs.3/ltr) for captive \nconsumption. The price

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section 144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section 144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section 144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

SONU DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Are As Under :

Pricing Officer passed under sub-section (3) of section 92CA; and (ii) any non-resident not being a company, or any foreign company: 11. From the bare reading of the above-mentioned provisions of Section 144C, it is evident that the Assessing Officer must forward a draft of the proposed assessment order to the eligible assessee if any variation

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)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

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

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

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)

90,00,000/- and Shri Babu Khan of Rs. 60,15,000/-. The totaling amount of Rs. 1,44,35,000/- was involved in these transactions. The assessee has claimed these transactions are not belongs to him. But, in support of his claim, the assessee has not submitted completed details and relevant documents. Kindly submit your explanation in this regard

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

90,552/- and balance\namount of Rs. 10,67,547/- was carried forward to next year as Capital\nLoss. It is seen from the details filed that the assessee made an agreement\non 13.04.2007 for purchase of unit no 756 in the IT Park JMD Magapolis\nGurgoan. As per the agreement of the sale of this property the basic sale

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

transfer.]\nFrom the above, it is clear that the provisions of Sec. 43CA are pari material\nthe provisions of Sec. 50C of the IT Act, 1961. The procedure for making\nreference to valuation cell is the same in both these section. As held by\nvarious Courts in several cases, even the valuation report obtained from the\nValuation Cell

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

90,314/- that was stated to be the amount being\nprofit from the sale of shares having been explained to be the amount of\nloss, the objections having been decided without any speaking order and not\ndealing with the undisputed factual aspects leads to the conclusion that the\nre-opening of the assessment is without there being any reason