M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,PALAMAU vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

12. On appeal, the CIT(A) has given part relief to the assessee. Hence, both the sides are in appeal before us. 13. Ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee partly by calculating the market price of electricity after reducing the duty paid therein. Ld counsel submitted that

ACIT, RANCHI vs. M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., PALAMAU

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

12. On appeal, the CIT(A) has given part relief to the assessee. Hence, both the sides are in appeal before us. 13. Ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee partly by calculating the market price of electricity after reducing the duty paid therein. Ld counsel submitted that

M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.,PALAMAU vs. ACIT, RANCHI

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

12. On appeal, the CIT(A) has given part relief to the assessee. Hence, both the sides are in appeal before us. 13. Ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee partly by calculating the market price of electricity after reducing the duty paid therein. Ld counsel submitted that

ACIT, RANCHI vs. M/S M/S ADITYA BIRLA CHEMICALS INDIA LTD., PALAMAU

In the result, Assessee`s appeals are allowed and Revenue`s appeals are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed to the extent indicated above

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am I.T.A Nos. 125 To 127/Ran/2015 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Aditya Birla Chemicals India Vs. Acit, Circle – 1, Ltd. (Formerly Known As Bihar Ranchi Caustic & Chemicals Ltd.) Rehla, Palamau – 822124. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb 7747 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

12. On appeal, the CIT(A) has given part relief to the assessee. Hence, both the sides are in appeal before us. 13. Ld counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee partly by calculating the market price of electricity after reducing the duty paid therein. Ld counsel submitted that

TATA CUMMINS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1-JAMSHEDPUR AND THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaytata Cummins Private Limited, D.C.I.T., Cummins India Office, Tower-A, 7Th Circle-1, Vs. Floor, Survey No. 21, Balewadi, Pune, Jamshedpur. Maharashtra. Pan No. Aaact 6353 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Transfer Pricing Guidelines, para 7.13 emphasises that there should not be any automatic inference about an AE receiving an entity group service only because it gets on incidental benefit for being part of a larger concern and not to any specific activity performed" 10.14 In addition, the Assessee further submits that the commercial expediency/ business rationale of a particular expenditure

TIMKEN INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

section 115-O of the Act and not at the rate of tax applicable to the non-resident shareholder(s) as specified in the relevant DTAA with reference to such dividend income. Nevertheless, we are conscious of the sovereign's prerogative to extend the treaty protection to domestic companies paying dividend distribution tax through the mechanism of DTAAs. Thus, wherever

SUNITA ADUKIA,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIR-2, RANCHI

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

price. (iv) For that the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, treating the Long Term Capital Gains as Short Term Capital Gain is bad in law as well as in facts and against the Principles of natural justice and therefore liable to be set aside. P a g e 2 | 17 ITA No.14 & 15/Ran/2018 Assessment

M/S USHA MARTIN LTD,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIR-3, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: BEFORES/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

transfer pricing, it was submitted that the assessee is in the business of manufacture of steel wire, steel ropes, wire rods, billets, wires, and other steel products etc. It was the submission that the products manufactured by the assessee was in the realm of steel. The assessee had provided its TNMM calculation and had given multiple

ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY,DHANBAD vs. PR. CIT, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

12,37,58,750.43 for 2 Ashok Kr. Pandey Vs PCIT the financial year under consideration and when asked to explain the reasons for high closing stocks, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submitted on 16/02/2019 that during relevant financial year, some projects were completed and most of the projects were shown under 'work in progress' since

DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. SHRI ANUP CHAWLA, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

price of the property at Rs. 45,00,000/- and stamp duty of Rs. 9,70,500/- and registration and other charges at Rs. 7,39,500/-. The value taken by the ld. Assessing Officer was the value charged by the Government for Stamp Duty purposes. The appellant submitted before AO that the provisions of section

SUDHIR KUMAR JHA,BOKARO STEEL CITY vs. ACIT OR DCIT, CIRCLE-3, BOKARO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

price. He has also sold paddy in 2012 to\ngovernment agencies and has received payment through cheque. A perusal\nof the details of the land sold as has been provided by Shri Sunil Kumar\nJha along with a certificate shows that the land was sold between\n08.12.2010 and 19.12.2016. The certificate issued by Shri Sunil Kumar\nJha says that

OM PRAAKSH SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Om Prakash Singh Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sankalp, East Jail Road, Ranchi- 834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agkps0300D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""थ" / Respondent)

section 148 of the Act was issued to assessee on 31.12.2016. In the assessee`s case the relevant assessment year is 2009-10, therefore the assessee`s case was reopened after the expiry of 4 Years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The settled position of law is that if an assessment for any year has been completed