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 in respect to its eligible power undertakings merely on the contention that such claim has not been made vide the return of income. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified and erred in confirming the disallowance

SURYA SINGHAL,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS) JP (2017) 87 taxmann.com 184 (Rajasthan) and CIT Vs\nVegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192(SC) The Hon'ble\nCourt held that if, two views are possible, the view in favour of the\nassessee should be preferred.\n(b) Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs CIT, Dhanbad (2013) 257 CTR\n159 (Jharkhand)\n(c) CIT, Karnataka Vs Shri Ramdas

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

transfer pricing audit has certified that the particulars given in the Annexure of Form 3CEB are true and correct. 8.4 On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT has erred in holding that there was a deliberate attempt of the appellant of non-disclosure by not filing Balance sheet in VAT15BS and Profit & loss account

SHANKAR ENGINEERING WORKS FOUNDRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(2), JAIPUR

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

Price Inflation Index as notified by CBDT vide Notification No.44/2017 dated 05/06/2017 for the Question FY i.e. 2016-17 while it is applicable w.e.f. FY 2017-18 only, for calculating Indexed cost of Acquisition as well as Improvement, therefore complete capital gain as calculated by the then is wrong and deserve to be deleted led complete addition is illegal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. NASH FASHION(INDIA) LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

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

TDS on interest payment to M/s SE Investment Ltd. and disallowance of Rs. 1,27,67,676/-on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80G and the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench Jaipur vide its order dated 01.10.2018 set aside the aforesaid issues to the file of the AO to verify the claim of the assessee that recipient NBFCs

NASH FASHION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2, JAIPUR

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

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

TDS on interest payment to M/s SE Investment Ltd. and disallowance of Rs. 1,27,67,676/-on account of disallowance of deduction u/s 80G and the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench Jaipur vide its order dated 01.10.2018 set aside the aforesaid issues to the file of the AO to verify the claim of the assessee that recipient NBFCs

NASH FASHION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

TDS on interest payment to M/s SE\nInvestment Ltd. and disallowance of Rs.1,27,67,676/-on account of\ndisallowance of deduction u/s 80G and the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench Jaipur\nvide its order dated 01.10.2018 set aside the aforesaid issues to the file of the\nAO to verify the claim of the assessee that recipient NBFCs has taken

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

price) from the concerning\nperson of all the 22 plots has not been taken in books.\n\nThe AO also noted that Shri Tejndra Pal Singh has taken loan &\nadvances of Rs.31,50,000/- from the trust and violated the provisions of section\n13(2) of the Act. Further no proper books of accounts have been maintained. TDS\nprovisions have

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

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

price) from the concerning\nperson of all the 22 plots has not been taken in books.\nThe AO also noted that Shri Tejndra Pal Singh has taken loan &\nadvances of Rs. 31,50,000/- from the trust and violated the provisions of section 13(2)\nof the Act. Further no proper books of accounts have been maintained. TDS\nprovisions have

AKSHAY INFRASYS INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS has been deducted. Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has claimed bogus expenses under the head direct expenses, salary & wages & depreciation on alleged execution of supply of precast finished goods to its sister concern M/s Symphonia & Graphics Private Limited. Therefore he made 7 Akshay Infrasys Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO disallowance of claim of direct expenses of Rs.1

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

TDS vide challanNo.48378 dated 20/03/2014 HDFC Bank\nThus, the peculiar feature of the case is that 90% of the sale consideration\nwas received within just five days of the agreement executed on 10/09/2008.\nThus, it is clear that the agreement to sell was executed on 10/09/2008\nwhereas the provisions of Section 43CA have become effective from\n01/04/2014, i.e. from assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

transferred though debited under the head fees for Franchisee fees is not the fees for technical services for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services but are of the business transaction as per the extensive agreement. Not only that the bench has noted that the similar query was raised while conducting the extensive scrutiny of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

transferred though debited under the head fees for Franchisee fees is not the fees for technical services for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services but are of the business transaction as per the extensive agreement. Not only that the bench has noted that the similar query was raised while conducting the extensive scrutiny of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

transferred though debited under the head fees for Franchisee fees is not the fees for technical services for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services but are of the business transaction as per the extensive agreement. Not only that the bench has noted that the similar query was raised while conducting the extensive scrutiny of the case

DEVIKA BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

transfer of land in specified areas. Since incorporation, the company had purchased land on behalf of RLHL. 2. During the year appellant procured the professional services in relation to development and acquisition related issues of land from three entities namely Nimbus Industries Limited, M/s Arena Trading (P) Ltd and M/s Hetu Investment & Trading Limited, making payments