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.

u/s 263 of the Act, detailed replies were filed before Id POT and the Ld. PCIT could not find any issue which was grossly and erroneously allowed by AO and for which addition or disallowance could be proposed by him in the order u /s 263. It was further submitted that during the revision proceedings, the Ld. PCIT asked

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

depreciation, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass an order of revision u/s. 263 of the Act. 11.2 The decision

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 263. Further Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Green World Corporation reported\nin 314 ITR 81 (SC) has held that \"The Income-tax Officer, while passing\nan order of assessment performs a judicial function. A revision\napplication lies before the Commissioner. It is trite that the jurisdiction\nexercised by the revisional authority pertains

HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

revised u/s 263 of the I.T. Act 1961 in a suitable manner. 5. Therefore, you are hereby given an opportunity to file your response in this regard by 24.03.2021 electronically. Please note that in case no reply is received from you by 24.03.2021, the matter will be decided on merits on the basis of material available on record without

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

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

revised u/s 263 of the IT Act 1961. 5 Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur 7. In this connection you may file your submission, if any, on or before 18.02.2022 by e-mail at jalpur.pcit2@incometax.gov.in. If you fail to file any reply, the matter will be decided on merit on the basis of material available

INDIA COMMERCIAL SERVICES ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

depreciation should have been allowed proportionately based on the\nuse of the assets, but full amount was allowed.\n4.4 Considering the above facts, a show cause notice dated 09.02.2024,\nwas issued to the assessee u/s 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, calling upon it to\nexplain as to why the assessment order passed by NeAC on 09.04.2021\n7\nITA

AYUB ALI,CHURU vs. PCIT-3, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Pcit On Which No Adverse Finding Was Given.”

revision as held by Hon’ble Calcutta High case of Jeewan Lal Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT 108 ITR 407. Hence, on this ground itself the order passed u/s 263 is illegal and bad in law. 8 Sh. Ayub Ali vs. Pr.CIT 11. It was accordingly submitted that the Ld. PCIT has referred to clause (a) & (b) to Explanation

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 263 of Income tax Act, 1961. Case citation Oil India Vs. CIT 138 ITR 836 (Cal) Held It is well settled that, in an appeal preferred before the AAC, the whole assessment is open for review. It is also well settled that where an appeal is preferred and the matter raised in the appeal is the subject-matter before

NATWAR LAL SHARDA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), on incorrect appreciation of the facts. 1.1 That, ld. PCIT has further erred in observing that assessee has claimed business loss including depreciation

ADITYA CEMENT,BEHROR vs. ITO, BEHROR

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

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

depreciation. Finally, it filed ITR on 26.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.30,00,650/- During assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised computation including the surrendered amount under the head “Income from business & profession” and explaining that there being no column in the ITR to show “Surrendered business income”, it had shown the same under the head “Income from other

RAWAT BAL VIDHA NIKETAN SAMITTEE,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

revision action under section 263 is bad in law if addition needs to\nbe made on the basis of an estimation or one of the possible views.\n3. That Ld. PCIT has further erred in passing revisionary order u/s 263 of the Act.\nAppellant prays that the order of AO neither being erroneous nor prejudicial to\nthe interest of Revenue

SCHOLAR'S EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,602-A, TRIMURTY DAVE APARTMENT, JAI SINGH HIGHWAY MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

Bench: The Cit(A), The Power Exercised By Him U/S 263 For Disallowing The Donation Paid To Other Society Would Not Fall In The Ambit Of Section 263. 3. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Finding Given By Ld. Cit That Once Exemption U/S 11 Is Withdrawn, Not Disallowing The Scholar’S Education Trust Of India Vs. Cit(E)

depreciation on fixed assets of Rs. 52,04,21,499/- which would be more than the amount of donation and thus no prejudice is caused to the Revenue and consequently holding the order passed by AO as erroneous & prejudicial to the interest of revenue is not as per law. 4. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground

M/S. ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD VILLAGE POST-PATAN, TEHSIL-KISHANGARH, DISTRICT-AJMER,KISHANGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

depreciation of Rs. 1,92,40,180/-. 4. That thereafter the ld. PCIT issued a notice dated 29.11.2018 u/s. 263 of the Act wherein it was alleged that the ld. Assessing Officer has not considered the above two aspects relating to surrender made before the Central Excise authorities during the course of assessment proceeding and thus the assessment order dated

M/S. RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPMENT P. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Us.

revised u/s 263 only if the twin conditions of error in the order and prejudice cause to the Revenue coexist and reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC). It was submitted that from the exhaustive material available on record and different enquiries made

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

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)

Depreciation Claim 2. Investments/Advances/Loans 3. Refund Claim 4. Business Loss” As evident above, the complete scrutiny proceedings were initiated due to one of the reasons being ‘investments’ made by the Appellant. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the Appellant vide submission dated 7 October 2019 (PB 36-45) provided the following information to the assessing officer in relation to ‘investments

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

depreciation on power plant and windmill, and the claim of deduction u/s 43B were examined in the course of original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. It was further submitted that when the AO in the original assessment proceeding has examined both the issues, the issuance of notice u/s 148 on those very issues is only on account

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

u/s 80IA on account of Solid Waste Management System. 78. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of Pozzolana Portland Cement (PPC) and Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). Apart from using gypsum and clinker as raw materials in the cement production, respondent also uses treated pond ash/fly ash (‘solid waste’) as a substitute