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

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

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)

2 inserted in section 263 by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015, which has widened the powers of CIT to revise the already completed assessment. In the present case ld. PCIT has taken shelter of clause (a) and (b) of the same, which reads as under: Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order

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)

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 and the circumstances

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

2, & 3 are taken together and discussed hereunder :- In this case, the Learned PCIT has passed order under section 263 on 21/03/2023 setting aside the order of the learned Assessing Officer passed on 24/3/2021. While passing the order u/s 263, the Learned PCIT has specified the following items on which the order of the Learned Assessing Officer has been found

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)

TDS of Rs. 98,51,320/- u/s 195 of the Act on the above sale consideration. The aforesaid immovable property was 10 Pradeep Kumar Rochwani, Jodhpur. purchased by the assessee through an Agreement for Sale executed on dated 23/12/2010 at the purchase consideration of Rs. 2,77,22,864/-. The assessee had paid Rs. 2,77,22,864/- in instalments

ARVIND KUMAR AGRAWAL,GURGAON vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOEM TAX DEPARTMENT

In the results, the appeal of assessee stands dismissed

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

Section 194 IA has to be made by Sh. Arvind Kumar Agrawal but no TDS details have been submitted to substantiate this stand. The Id. PCIT-1, Jaipur in para No. 11, 12 and 13 of the order u/s 263 at page '4 to 5' of the order has stated:- 11. "Perusal of the "agreement to sale dated 30.01.2018 shows

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) to section 263\nof the Income Tax Act. Hence, the assessment order is set aside as\ndiscussed above and the AO is directed to examine the issues and pass\nsuitable order after according opportunity of being heard to the\nassessee.\"\nBasically, vide above order, ld. PCIT has issued directions for revision of\nassessment order on following issues:\n1. Disallowance

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 of Rs. 98,51,320/- u/s 195 of the Act on the above sale consideration. The aforesaid immovable property was purchased by the assessee through an Agreement for Sale executed on dated 23/12/2010 at the purchase consideration of Rs. 2,77,22,864/-. The assessee had paid Rs. 2,77,22,864/- in installments and that cost was claimed

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

2,31,05,850/-. During the scrutiny assessment, the AO noted that the assessee has made payment of Rs. 27,65,853/- to Central Power Research Institute (CPRI) as testing fee on which TDS was required to be made under section 194C of the IT Act. However, the assessee has not deducted TDS in respect of the said payment. Accordingly

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

2 of section 263 of the Act and thereby the assessment order was set aside as per provisions of section 263 of the Act. 5. Feeling aggrieved from the above order of PCIT, the assessee has challenged the finding of Id. PCIT on three grounds, i.e. invoking the jurisdiction, Liability does not arise for TDS

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

263 of the Act. 24. With regard to rent expenditure as alleged by the ld. Pr.CIT , we observe that vide Para 2 of the reply letter to the questionnaire dated 20- 12-2017, filed before Ld. Pr.CIT-3, assessee company has furnished detailed reply and reasoning of the Rent expenses of Rs.66.96 lacs in the year under assessment in comparison

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 143(3) r.w.s 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, by the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi. 2 A3logics (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. The ld. PCIT, Jaipur-1 erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in taking the action

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

PADAM PRAKASH KHAANDAKA HUF,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Cit(A) & The Matter Had Not Attained Finality. 3. The Learned Cit Has Erred In Nor Appreciating That Assessment Of Every Assessment Year Is Separate & Depends On The Facts For That Year Only.” M/S Padam Prakash Khandaka. Vs. Acit

section 263 and not subsequent thereto. 11. In light of above discussions and taking into consideration the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that Pr. CIT has rightly exercised his powers u/s 263 of the Act. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are thus dismissed. In the result

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

TDS and cannot create automatic and conclusive charge of income in hands of recipient unless concrete material is brought on records by Ld AO/revenue to say that assessee concerned has obtained said sum in its coffers which can’t be left in lurch as done in extant case . 8.1 Solemn duty of making of independent and meaningful enquiry u/s 133/6

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

TDS and cannot create automatic and conclusive charge of income in hands of recipient unless concrete material is brought on records by Ld AO/revenue to say that assessee concerned has obtained said sum in its coffers which can’t be left in lurch as done in extant case . 8.1 Solemn duty of making of independent and meaningful enquiry u/s 133/6