CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

section 14A(1), deduction of that expenditure is not to be allowed which has been incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. Axiomatically, it is that expenditure alone which has been incurred in relation to the income which is includible in total income that

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. PCIT has erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 when the order of the ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The action of the ld. PCIT is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

263 of the Act and uphold the order of AO allowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) as per the discussion made in Para 12 to 15 of its order after considering the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in reported at 392 ITR 74& 395 ITR 611. 9. It is submitted that Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

263 of the Act and uphold the order of AO allowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) as per the discussion made in Para 12 to 15 of its order after considering the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in reported at 392 ITR 74& 395 ITR 611. 9. It is submitted that Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

263 of the Act and uphold the order of AO allowing deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) as per the discussion made in Para 12 to 15 of its order after considering the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in reported at 392 ITR 74& 395 ITR 611. 9. It is submitted that Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case

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

depreciation was the subject- matter of appeal, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under section 263 and to pass any order on this aspect of the matter. 6 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT 412 ITR 515 (Guj) Haryana Paper Distributors Pvt. Ltd. V. Pr. CIT Held Two things immediately become clear. First that the Assessing

JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

depreciation of Rs. 60,13,003/- on the addition to fixed asset made during the year of Rs. 1,10,51,167/-. 3. 1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 14 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1)(iii) instead of under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. Appellant\nprays that disallowance of interest was made by ld.AO, after considering all\nthe facts as well as submission made by assessee and in light of decision of\nHon'ble ITAT passed in the case of assessee itself, therefore assessment order\nso passed by ld.AO after due application

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

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

263 of the Act has been issued manually. It is also noticed that the DIN for the order is generated through two separate intimations one bearing the same date as the date of the order u/s.263 and the other is dated 25.03.2022. The argument of the ld DR that the intimation dated 24.03.2022 is part of the order and that

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)

263 of the Act proposing to modify the assessment order stating it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on account of the following issues: • Disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”) • Deduction of tax at source on matching the expense debited in profit

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)

section 263. 3. Under the facts and 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) donation of Rs. 1,83,60,000/- in computing the total income has made the assessment order passed by AO as erroneous & prejudicial

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.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

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

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

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

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.”

section shall extend [and shall be deemed to have extended] to such matter as had not been considered and decided in such appeal." Since the matter for which proceedings u/s 263 of the Act has been initiated cannot be in question in appeal as the AO has allowed incorrect deduction to the assessee and what has been incorrectly allowed

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.

section 263 brought by the Finance Act, 2015 is effective from 01-06-2015 and does not operate retrospectively. (Para 7, Pg. 6) (3) Identical principle also held in Indus Best Hospitality & Realtors Pvt. Ltd. –vs.- PCIT [ITA No. 3125/Mum/2017 dated 19-01-2018] (Para 23, Pg. 10) Without prejudice to the above submissions that proceedings u/s 263 are invalid

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

1 and 2 of section 801A(3) of the Act. Against that\nobservation assessee submitted that the plant and machinery of the sister\nconcern was taken up by the domestic unit and not the SEZ unit of the\nassessee company. In support of this contention, copy of rent agreement,\ncopy of board resolution, bank statement of the domestic unit