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

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 or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction

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 or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

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 to the rates

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

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

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

KOTHARI JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) have been wrongly invoked. 3.8 Ld. AO, under misconception, has applied Domestic Transfer Pricing norms as contained in Chapter X of Income Tax Act, 1961. It may be noted that these norms for Domestic Transactions were introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01/04/2013 i.e. A.Y. 2013-14. Therefore, for the year under consideration

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

sections": [ "143(3)", "144C(13)", "144C(5)", "92D", "10D", "92C(3)", "92B", "92C", "115JB", "270A", "36(1)(va)", "115QA", "69C", "115QB", "10B(2)", "10C", "92", "10A" ], "issues": "The key issues involve the appropriateness of the transfer pricing

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

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

Section 92C(3) of the Act has not been satisfied \n\n5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. TPO, \nLd. AO and the Hon'ble DRP erred in rejecting the Transactional Net Margin \nMethod ('TNMM') considered by the appellant as the Most Appropriate Method \n('MAM') with Operating profit margin/ Operating Expenses ('OP/OE

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

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

3. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case & in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not appreciating the fact that the second proviso to section 92C(2) is not applicable in the instance case, as the AO has applied CUP method for determining ARM’S LENGTH PRICE.” DCIT Vs. M/s Jaipur Rugs Co. Pvt. Ltd. 9. The issue

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

3. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case & in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not appreciating the fact that the second proviso to section 92C(2) is not applicable in the instance case, as the AO has applied CUP method for determining ARM’S LENGTH PRICE.” DCIT Vs. M/s Jaipur Rugs Co. Pvt. Ltd. 9. The issue

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

3. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case & in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not appreciating the fact that the second proviso to section 92C(2) is not applicable in the instance case, as the AO has applied CUP method for determining ARM’S LENGTH PRICE.” DCIT Vs. M/s Jaipur Rugs Co. Pvt. Ltd. 9. The issue

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

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only

3. Whether on the facts & circumstances of the case & in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not appreciating the fact that the second proviso to section 92C(2) is not applicable in the instance case, as the AO has applied CUP method for determining ARM’S LENGTH PRICE.” DCIT Vs. M/s Jaipur Rugs Co. Pvt. Ltd. 9. The issue