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:-

Section 263 proceedings stood examined by the AO. The following tabular analysis compares the issues raised in the SCN/Order u/s 263 by Ld. PCIT and coverage thereof by the AO during the assessment proceedings: S. Discrepancies pointed out by Whether alleged discrepancy No. Ld. PCIT in her SCN/order u/s examined by AO during scrutiny 263 proceedingsu/s

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

1. Whether the PCIT correctly invoked powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether TDS was correctly

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

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

Section 263\ncan only be invoked only if thereis a fault and there is an error and it was\nfor the CIT to have demonstrated some error.\nOtherwise also he has not suggested what further inquiries could and\nshould have been made in the admitted facts and circumstances of the\npresent case.\n4.3 C) Disallowance u/s 36(1

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)

1 to Section 115JB of the Act. 6. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.PCIT, Jaipur-1 has grossly erred in directing the AO for fresh assessment even after appreciating the certificate u/s 35AC(2) of the Act, as submitted during the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. 7. Under the facts

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)

TDS u/s 194C was deducted towards rendering, managing and 36 Career Point Limited, Kota. maintaining services by the assessee firm. Consequently, the AO accepted the explanation of the assessee firm and assessed the income under the head ‘’Income from Business and Profession’’. However, ld. PCIT while invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act erred in placing a restrictive

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nResidential status (Salary) Assessment year 2011-12\nAssessee, employed with RIL, was deputed as Country\nManager to Kurdistan, Iraq, and for purpose of his\nemployment in Iraq, he had received salary - In annual\nreturn of income filed in India, assessee had claimed\nexemption of salary earned outside India - Assessing\nOfficer passed assessment order

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)

263 of the Act. Submissions 10 Baroda Rajasthan Kheshtriya Gramin Bank vs. PCIT 1. The case was selected for regular scrutiny as per CASS vide notice u/s 143(2) dated 10/08/2018 (PB page no 1). The case was selected for complete scrutiny. The AO after detailed verification passed an order u/s 143(3) dt 31/12/2019 and made an addition

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)

section under which TDS was deducted submitted during proceedings u/s 263. Facts and Submission:- 1. The Ld. PCIT at Pg 18, Para

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)

section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Hence, the assessment order is set aside on this issue and the AO is directed to examine the issue and pass suitable order after according opportunity of being heard to the assessee.” 5. Feeling dissatisfied, the assessee filed the present on the various grounds as reproduced here in above. To support grounds

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;\nIn this regard, reliance is placed on:\n243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT\n“A bare reading of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, makes it\nclear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the\nCommissioner suomotu under it, is that the order of the Income Tax\nOfficer

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

263 alleging that Ld. AO has neither made any\nquery on the applicability of section 14A r.w.r. 8D on the assessee\ncompany nor has examined it for disallowance u/s 14A of the Act.\nDuring Revision proceedings, assessee duly explained all the facts and\nsubmitted necessary documentary evidences on the issues raised in\nshow cause notice, however Ld. PCIT brushed them

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)

section 14A of the IT Act, 1961. Hence, the Ground No. 1 of the assessee is allowed. 3.1 Apropos Ground NO. 2 of the assessee, it is noted that Ld. PCIT vide show cause notice dt. 28.02.2023 issued u/s 263 (PB 1-3) observed that assessee has made following international transactions with the associate enterprises which have not been reported

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

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

263, and Category III covers all other cases not falling within category I and category II (m) which is governed by clause (c). By dividing into three categories the period of limitation for cases falling under category (i), ie, clause (1)(a) is the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 263 of the Act.” c. The above observation of ld PCIT is contrary to evidences and material on record as therelevant part of agreement to purchase dated 28.12.2012, the screen short of same is as under:- .................................................................................................................... 8 Pradeep Kumar Rochwani, Jodhpur. d. The Hon’ble CBDT and the decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts has settled

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)

section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. Further the PCIT also noted that an amount of Rs. 1,04,776/- u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act adjusted and added in the intimation issued u/s. 143(1) of the dated 04.01.2019 has not been considered while passing the order by the ld. AO. Based on these

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)

1) of the Act. It can be exercised only when an order is erroneous, the section 263 will be attracted. In view of aforesaid factual and legal discussions, in our considered view, the twin condition as required to revise the assessment order is not meet out in the present case, therefore, the order passed

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

1,58,76,990 TDS not applicable (HDFC&SBI) Interest paid to government departments 30,022 TDS not applicable Interest on unsecured loans 37,72,317 TDS deducted Interest paid to others (below TDS limit) 5,887 TDS not applicable Total 3,82,03,413 Add : IND AS adjustments 10,69,246 19 APM Industries Ltd vs. DCIT Add : Bank

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year