VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavvaibhav Global Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम Jaipur. Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacv4679F

92C of the Act read with Rule 1OD of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('the Rules'). 3. On the facts and in law, the Ld. TPO, Ld. AO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the economic analysis carried out by the Appellant in the Transfer Pricing ('TP') documentation prepared and maintained in compliance with Section

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

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

2) and 10B(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 30.12. The ld. A/R of the assessee also submitted that the rates at which power is purchased by distribution companies from generation companies are the rates charged by generation companies to middlemen (i.e. B2B business models) which are governed by altogether different level of market and are therefore not comparable

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. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

transfer power directly to the ultimate industrial consumer i.e. the manufacturing units of assessee.\n30.13. Further, the aspect as to why rate at which power is sold to 3rd parties including Power distribution companies should not be considered as internal CUP and hence considered for computing arm's length price under the Transfer Pricing regulations, needs to be dealt with

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

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 Pricing Officer (TPO) and the TPO has adopted the CUP method for determination of arm’s length price and has proposed an adjustment of Rs. 18,65,77,973/- determined as the value of interest

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

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 Pricing Officer (TPO) and the TPO has adopted the CUP method for determination of arm’s length price and has proposed an adjustment of Rs. 18,65,77,973/- determined as the value of interest

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

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

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

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

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, 92D and 92E, "specified domestic transaction" in case of an assessee means any of the following transactions

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

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