PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

capital receipt - HELD THAT:- The entire show cause notice that the initiation of revision is premised only on the report submitted by the AO requesting for the revision of the assessment order. During an earlier hearing, the ld. DR was directed to produce the said report of the AO forming part of the show cause notice. DR produced the file

VIPUL KUMAR MODI ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR -I

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Addition u/s 68 - exempted u/s 10(38) denied - long-term capital gain shown by the assessee

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

Revision u/s 263 - income surrendered during survey operation was not verified in\npursuance to the provision of section 69 r.w.s. 115BBE - PCIT held that the\nassessment has been framed u/s 143(3) of the Act without verification with respect to\nundisclosed income offered by the assessee in pursuance to the provisions of section\n69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act which

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALSANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

Revision—Order erroneous or prejudicial to revenue—Over exercise of power—Assessee an individual filed his return declaring income and agricultural income—Case was selected for limited scrutiny for reason that there was a substantial increase in capital during year relevant to assessment year under consideration—AO accepted return filed by assessee—Pr. CIT issued notice to assessee u/s 263

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

Revision—Order erroneous or prejudicial to revenue—Over exercise of power—Assessee an individual filed his return declaring income and agricultural income—Case was selected for limited scrutiny for reason that there was a substantial increase in capital during year relevant to assessment year under consideration—AO accepted return filed by assessee—Pr. CIT issued notice to assessee u/s 263

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALASANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

Revision—Order erroneous or prejudicial to revenue—Over exercise of power—Assessee an individual filed his return declaring income and agricultural income—Case was selected for limited scrutiny for reason that there was a substantial increase in capital during year relevant to assessment year under consideration—AO accepted return filed by assessee—Pr. CIT issued notice to assessee u/s 263

ANIL KUMAR BATAR,SIKAR vs. PCIT-JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain\nfrom sale of flat-Assessee has reflected that same in its capital\naccount-Further in response to letter issued by AO during assessment\nproceedings, assessee submitted his reply explaining reason for\nincrease in capital—However, Pr. CIT exercising jurisdiction under\nsection 263, directed AO to make fresh assessment on issues which\nwere not subject matter of limited scrutiny—Since

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

263 by the Commissioner proper and valid. [Para 16] (c) In the case of Jeevan Investment & Finance (P.) ltd. Vs CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 552 (Bombay], it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that: " ..... merely asking a question which goes to the root of the matter and not carrying it further is a case of non-enquiry

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

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. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

u/s 54EC of the IT Act 1961 5000000 Net long term capital gain 7104758 Capital gain already shown in ITR 865274 13 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT Net long Term Capital gain chargeable to Tax 6239484 Assessee submits with reference to the proposition and show cause notice is the only limitation on his powers is that he must

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

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

u/s\n40(a)(ia) of the Act (and the total reassessed income of Rs.\n5,97,80,77,790/-). However, this was followed by a notice u/s 263 with\nreference to the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. 147 of the\nAct dated 26.03.2015 on the ground that a further amount of sales tax\nsubsidy of Rs.20

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain 15,72,409/- 58-62 Offered in IDS At this juncture, reliance is placed on decision of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Killick Nixon Ltd., Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, wherein it has been held as under: “As far as the provisions of KVSS are concerned, we agree with the contention

M/S JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

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.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

Capital Gain on Sale of Land Rs. 3,47,485/- - Part disallowance of depreciation on Vehicle Rs. 1,37,346/- Rs.27,35,361/- Aggrieved of the additions made in the assessment order, assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A), which proceedings were also concluded vide order dated 31.01.2018. Subsequently, ld. PCIT(adm.) initiated the proceedings u/s 263 by issue

SHREE AURO IRON LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

263 of the Income-tax Act by holding that the AO failed to examine the ‘Interest claimed as part of the capital cost' u/s 48, which is wholly unjustified, bad in law and deserves to be quashed.\n4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. PCIT erred by holding that AO has failed

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 u/s 263 is not permissible merely because ld PCIT may entertain a different view on the issue. Hence it would not be correct to conclude that the assessment had been done based on incomplete or incorrect information provided by the assessee and the assessment order passed by ld FAO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

Capital Gain of Rs.3,78,74,469/- (PB5). 2. In the first round, the case was selected for scrutiny supposedly, on the issue of examination of LTCG. Notices u/s 143(2) dt.18.09.2015 and thereafter notice u/s 142(1) were issued time to time which were duly replied and assessment was completed vide order dt. 31.07.2016 u/s

ARUN KUMAR PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PR CIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Revision—Order erroneous or prejudicial to revenue—Over exercise of power—Assessee an individual filed his return declaring income and agricultural income—Case was selected for limited scrutiny for reason that there was a substantial increase in capital during year relevant to assessment year under consideration—AO accepted return filed by assessee—Pr. CIT issued notice to assessee u/s 263

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)

revise a duly complied assessment proceeding. M/s. AU Small Finance Bank Limited & Avas Financiers Limited 7. Moreover, Ld. PCIT has unwarrantedly invoked powers vested u/s 263 of the Act as in the said ground he has not substantiated the said order as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Relevant extracts from the Order u/s 263

DHARMENDRA MEHTA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

263 and thereby holding the order passed by ld.AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this regard, at the outset, it is submitted that ld. PCIT has proceeded in a very casual and slipshod manner and has overlooked the facts as well as details filed by the assessee which

SUMIT GOEL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

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

263 and KailashbenManharlalChokshi Versus Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2010) 328 ITR 411 (Guj) various High Courts have held that addition based solely on statement later on retracted, without anything more, could not be justified in law. Thus, the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. In view of the above consideration, we are of the view that