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.

transfer price of power. We further, from the facts of the assessee’s case as stated above, where there is both exclusivity (resulting in huge capex for single user) advantage and uninterrupted power supply, we on facts, agree with the assessee’s claim that Rs. 1.50/unit is the minimum reliability surcharge at arm’s length principles. As regards

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.

transfer price of power. We further, from the facts of the assessee’s case as stated above, where there is both exclusivity (resulting in huge capex for single user) advantage and uninterrupted power supply, we on facts, agree with the assessee’s claim that Rs. 1.50/unit is the minimum reliability surcharge at arm’s length principles. As regards

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

transfer price of power. We further, from the facts of the\nassessee’s case as stated above, where there is both exclusivity\n(resulting in huge capex for single user) advantage and\nuninterrupted power supply, we on facts, agree with the assessee’s\nclaim that Rs. 1.50/unit is the minimum reliability surcharge at\narm’s length principles. As regards

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)

Transfer Price of Power for the purpose of deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act. The said ground relates to non- consideration of component of reliability charge of Rs. 1.50 per unit which the power undertaking is eligible to charge for providing uninterrupted and quality power supply to the cement manufacturing units of the assessee. 3. Before

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

loss or \ndoes not have any chargeable profits, then no education cess is \npayable, but the assessee can carry on his business activity. In \nother words, the education cess is chargeable only in the event of \nchargeable profits being there and not otherwise. The relevant \nlegal precedents already cited clearly establish that education cess \nvery much falls within the mischief

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

set off the loss\nunder capital gain head on the sale of property at SF 756, JMD mega\npolis IT park, Sohna Road, Gurgaon in the year under reference to the\nextent of capital gain available and the rest capital loss be allowed for\nset toff in if in the subsequent years.\nThe assessment order, the grounds of appeal

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)

price of power should further be increased by Reliability charge of Rs. 1.50 per unit while computing deduction u/s 80-1A of the Act as held in appellant's own case by this Hon'ble Tribunal for earlier years. [For Addl. Ground No.1] 3.0 Claim of deduction u/s 80-1A on eligible Solid Waste Management System

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

set of entities. In wat observed that Raghav Commodities (hereinafter referred to as "Noticee") was one of the various entities which were indulged in execution of non-gemuine trades in Stock Options Segment of BSE during the investigation period. The following poins narrate the dealings of the Noticee during the investigation period and the allegations against it for execution

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

set aside the above said finding by observed in the manner as:- “Ground No. 10, Ground No.11 and Ground No. 12- This ground relates to the allowability or otherwise of capital loss incurred on extinguishment of right of the appellant in CFCL Technologies Limited, Cayman Islands on its merger with CFCL Ventures Ltd, Cayman Islands. From the material placed before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

set aside the above said finding by observed in the manner as:- “Ground No. 10, Ground No.11 and Ground No. 12- This ground relates to the allowability or otherwise of capital loss incurred on extinguishment of right of the appellant in CFCL Technologies Limited, Cayman Islands on its merger with CFCL Ventures Ltd, Cayman Islands. From the material placed before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

set aside the above said finding by observed in the manner as:- “Ground No. 10, Ground No.11 and Ground No. 12- This ground relates to the allowability or otherwise of capital loss incurred on extinguishment of right of the appellant in CFCL Technologies Limited, Cayman Islands on its merger with CFCL Ventures Ltd, Cayman Islands. From the material placed before

AGRASEN PRIMSES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

set of books of accounts and financial results before Ld. CIT\n(Appeals).\nC. Apart from these the assessee submitted following evidences and\ndocuments before Ld. CIT (Appeals).\n1. Copies of the contract note of sales and purchases.\n2. Copy of account with Master Capital Services Ltd. For the period\n01/04/2013 to31/03/2014.\n3. Copies of bank account to prove

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

set off from business loss as assessee has filed the return after due date prescribed under the Income Tax Act. 5) That the Commissioner Appeals has grossly erred in holding and sustaining the finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has shown business loss of 10,59,845/- in its computation of total income but it is not deductible

SPECTRUM FOODS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transferring trade profits and losses from one client to another client account by amending client codes in ‘Future and Option' segment in NSE under the pretence of correcting errors. The gain or loss book entries were then employed to evade tax. The letter stated that many persons utilized losses generated by unscrupulous brokers through mala fide modification of client codes

M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,E-8, EPIP RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

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)

loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and AO has taken one view with which the PCIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order and it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is totally unsustainable in law. We draw strength from case of Malabar Industrial

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

price of shares of the first company and\nthe second company on the date of exchange was income chargeable. Hence by\ncorollary, the loss on similar exchange is to be allowed. Thus the allegation of the\n032\nITA No. 1090, 1097 ΤΟ 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024\nChambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota\nassessing officer that there is no transfer within the meaning

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

price of shares of the first company and\nthe second company on the date of exchange was income chargeable. Hence by\ncorollary, the loss on similar exchange is to be allowed. Thus the allegation of the\n032\nITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024\nChambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota\nassessing officer that there is no transfer within the meaning