SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

TDS of Rs.21,732/-. The impugned order thus, to this\nextent in nullity being without jurisdiction and therefore deserves to be\nquashed.\n6. Rs.6,35,00,000/-: The Id. PCIT, Udaipur in the impugned order\npassed u/s 263, raised an issue for obtaining new loans during the\nimpugned previous year of Rs.6,35,00,000/-. The impugned order thus

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Us. In This Appeal The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

revision u/s. 263 of the Act and therefore the order u/s. 263 of the Act has to be held to be invalid, illegal. We are of the view that this argument is liable to be rejected. It is no doubt true that the CIT in the show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act has set out the proposal

APM INDUSTRIES LTD,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

u/s. 263 of the Act. Considering this aspect of the matter the order of the ld. AO liable for revision under the explanation (2) clause (b) and cluse (a) of section 263 of the Act the order of the ld. AO was set a side. 18 APM Industries Ltd vs. DCIT 7.1 In response to the notice issued

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Revision under section 263 is not permissible merely because ld. PCIT may entertain a different view on the issue. The stand adopted by ld. AO is one which is plausible supported by CBDT Circular and Supreme Court decision and, therefore, cannot be said to be erroneous in terms of the provisions of section 263. From the records on merit

SOURABH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT,JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS was required in these transactions. Thus, when all the transactions are duly recorded in the books of account there is no need by the PCIT to consider the same as unexplained sales promotion expenses. Considering the overall facts of the case bench noted that the scope of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 is very specific, limited and different from appellate

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

revised return of income was filed on 13-02-201 wherein the total income was declared at Rs.10,59,16,20,290/- for claim of TDS. The assessee is a Non-Banking Finance Company which is engaged in the business of providing small loans, vehicle loans, small and medium enterprises loans in rural and semi-urban areas, issuing debentures

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS was deducted on above amount and deposited on 07.06.2018. However, no supporting documents has been provided/furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings as well as proceedings initiated u/s 263. In absence of supporting documentary evidences claim of the assessee not accepted. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,04,776 - required to be disallowed u/s

BARODA RAJASTHAN KHESTRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

revision under clause (a) & (b) of the Explanation (2) of section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961. The assessment order dt. 25.03.2022 is partly set aside, only the issue of Provision for Standard Asset of Rs.26,51,59,000/- in the case would be the subject matter of fresh proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. Submissions 10 Baroda Rajasthan

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS on managerial commission where\nTDS is payable at the time of payment and not at the time of making\nprovision, therefore the order of PCIT (Admin) directing the AO in this regard\ndeserves to be held bad in law and consequent proceeding u/s 263 be quashed\non this issue. In any case, the present assessment order cannot be said

COLUMBUS OVERSEAS LLP,16, RAJA PARK, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DAS ROAD, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

u/s 263, proposing revision of the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer on 12/2/2011 on the following grounds :- 8 Columbus Overseas LLP (i) That payment of Rs.48,281/- on account of interest on delayed payment of TDS

PARSHAVNATH BUILDERS ,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If any one of them is absent i.e. if the assessment order is not erroneous but it is prejudicial to the Revenue, Sec.263 cannot be invoked. This provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

revision u/s 263 of the Act to the extent the Ld. AO has allegedly allowed excess deduction of Rs. 16.89 crores with respect to bad debts. written off. 4. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT, has grossly erred in directing the Ld. AO for fresh assessment without holding how the Assessment

M/S ETERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. ,3A, JAGATPURA ROAD, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

TDS u/s 195 of the Act in clause 34(a) tax audit report Form 3CD. Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT observed that the assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271AA of the Act which is 2% of unreported transactions (i.e. 2% of Rs.7,47,84,363/- = Rs.14,95,687/-) but the FAO has failed to initiate and levy such

AJAY AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. CIT (IT), DELHI-1, CIT(IT) DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS was refundable. The case was selected in scrutiny assessment through CASS to the verification of refund claim. The assessment was made without any addition or disallowance and resultant refund was granted after the assessment. 10 Ajay Agarwal vs. CIT (IT) Thereafter, honourable CIT (International Taxation) Delhi, the jurisdictional Commissioner issued the SCN to propose revision u/s 263

M/S. GURU KRIPA CAREER INSTITUTE PVT. LTD.,SIKAR vs. PR.CIT-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

revision. We would also like to state that ld. Pr. CIT can force the Assessing officer to conduct the enquiries in the manner preferred by him then it will be prejudiced to the independent application of mind by the AO and definitely that could not be intention of the legislature in inserting Explanation 2 to section 263

M/S MANGLAM LAND BANK COMPANY,6TH FLOOR, APEX MALL, TONK ROAD, LAL KOTHI, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

revised under clause (a) & (b) of Explanation (2) to section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The observation of PCIT is reproduced hereunder: 4 M/S Manglam Lank Bank Company “1.Since this was interest on unsecured loans, the assessee was liable to deduct tax on this amount u/s 194A of the Act but no TDS

MANIRATNAM GEMS PVT. LTD.,BEAWAR vs. ACIT,C-2, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

263 dated 20.11.2020, proposing to initiate the revision proceedings on the certain issues. The first issue raised by the PCIT in 3 M/s.Maniratnam Gems (P) Ltd. vs ACIT, Circle-2, Ajmer the show cause notice has been discussed in para 4 of the order and relates to the issue that appellant had made purchases

NARENDRA SHARMA,DHOLPUR vs. PR.CIT, ALWAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 282/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Cuke Shri Narendra Sharma, P.C.I.T. 2 Opp. Midway, Gt Road, Vs. Alwar. Dholpur. Pan No.: Afipn 1992 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

revised at a total income of Rs.1,02,03,490/- which was accepted by the A.O. Thereafter, the ld. PCIT issued notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 05.02.2020 stating that (i) assessee has claimed deduction under chapter VI-A of Rs.1,50,000/- but no supporting documents/ evidence is placed on record (ii) assessee has shown large amount

SHRI VINOD KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

revise the assessment U/s 263 of the Act. Hence, the action of the Pr.CIT is invalid and without jurisdiction as the order of the Assessing Officer is not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The ld AR has referred to the Explanation-2 to Section 263(1) of the Act and submitted that none of the conditions