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

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

Transfer Pricing ("TP") documentation maintained under section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules) and subsequently applying new filters for the purpose of identification of companies comparable to the appellant. In doing so, the Ld. TPO, Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP failed to discharge the statutory onus to establish

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)

section 92C, the arms length price in relation to an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely:- (a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which, - (i) the price charged or paid for property transferred

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)

section 92C, the arms length price in relation to an international transaction or a specified domestic transaction] shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely:- (a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which, - (i) the price charged or paid for property transferred

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

price computed in terms of section 92C of the Income Tax Act. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the matter was referred by the Assessing officer to the Transfer

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

price computed in terms of section 92C of the Income Tax Act. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the matter was referred by the Assessing officer to the Transfer

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

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

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

Transfer Pricing (\"TP\") documentation \nmaintained under section 92D of the Act read with Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 \n(the Rules) and subsequently applying new filters for the purpose of identification of \ncompanies comparable to the appellant. In doing so, the Ld. TPO, Ld. AO and the Hon’ble \nDRP failed to discharge the statutory onus

JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

transfer pricing is also not acceptable. Hence, we find that the matter has not been properly examined by the TPO or by the ld. CIT(A) to work out the correct methodology for the purpose of computing the arm’s length price and then benchmarking the same with the price of the international transaction. Hence, in the facts and circumstances

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY (P) LTD., JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

transfer pricing is also not acceptable. Hence, we find that the matter has not been properly examined by the TPO or by the ld. CIT(A) to work out the correct methodology for the purpose of computing the arm’s length price and then benchmarking the same with the price of the international transaction. Hence, in the facts and circumstances

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. M/S JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

transfer pricing is also not acceptable. Hence, we find that the matter has not been properly examined by the TPO or by the ld. CIT(A) to work out the correct methodology for the purpose of computing the arm’s length price and then benchmarking the same with the price of the international transaction. Hence, in the facts and circumstances

JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

transfer pricing is also not acceptable. Hence, we find that the matter has not been properly examined by the TPO or by the ld. CIT(A) to work out the correct methodology for the purpose of computing the arm’s length price and then benchmarking the same with the price of the international transaction. Hence, in the facts and circumstances

KOTHARI JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Law by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2013, the sales to the Associated Enterprises are not covered in all circumstances. Section 92BA defining the “specified domestic transactions” reads as under:- “For the purposes of this section and sections 92, 92C

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JAIPUR RUGS COMPANY (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

price of AE is better than the unrelated parties whereas on the other hand it has been claimed that the AE is given bulk discount for which no evidence was produced whatsoever. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, ld. CIT(A) was justified in not appreciating the fact that the second proviso to section

M/S CENTURY INFRA POWER P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

92C(3) of the Act. 2.2 That the Id. CIT(A) has further erred in not considering the fact that the assessee had paid interest @ 13% on funds borrowed from banks, and thus a payment of interest @15%, which is 2% plus bank- rate, was an acceptable parameter to establish arm's-length rate being considered by the assessee

UTTAM BHARAT ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Transfer Pricing Study Analysis and claimed that as per the Internal CUP of payment of interest to the unrelated parties, the assessee is paying average interest and brokerage amounting to 15.36%. The assessee claimed that the Specified Domestic Transaction interest to the related parties at 15% is at Arm’s Length. The TPO has proceeded to adopt External

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

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 95[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