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 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

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

1) of \nthe Act was made on 06.10.2022 for determining the arms’ length price of international \ntransactions undertaken by the appellant during the year under consideration. \n\n4. During the course of proceedings before Ld. TPO, transfer pricing documents, so \nmaintained by the appellant, were submitted for perusal and consideration. \n\n5. The appellant has been using the Cost-Plus

GUNMALA JAIN,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1262/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears :2019-20 Gunmala Jain, बनाम 28 Abhi Lash Nikunj, Kalyan Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2) Colony, Ajmer Road Kekri, Ajmer स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./ PAN/GIR No.: ABRPJ 4764E Ajmer अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assesseeby :Sh. Sunil Porwal, CA (Thr.V.C.) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary (Addl. CIT) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18/1

Transfer Pricing Officer, where the assessee had maintained information and documents as prescribed under section 92D, declared the international transaction under Chapter X, and, disclosed all the material facts relating to the transaction; and (e) the amount of undisclosed income referred to in section 271AAB. ……………………………………………. Sub-Section (7) prescribes levy of penalty at the rate of 50% of the amount

KOTHARI JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

92D and 92E, "specified domestic transaction" in case of an assessee means any of the following transactions, not being an international transaction, namely:— 12 M/s Kothari Jewels Private Ltd., Mumbai Vs ACIT, Jaipur (i) any expenditure in respect of which payment has been made or is to be made to a person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section