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

disallowing the advertisement expenditure claimed by\nthe assessee There is nothing on record to suggest that the order of AO is not\nsustainable in law - the order of the CIT is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.\n• Hon'ble ITAT Pune Bench in Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 11 TMI\n794 has held: Revision u/s 263

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

REVISION U/S. 263 7. CIT v. Manna Trust 42 44 {2022 (01) TMI 693} Rajasthan High Court 27 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT 8. Gayatri Devi v. PCIT 45 78 {2023 (10) TMI 23} ITAT - Jaipur PAPER BOOK-II SNo. Particulars Page No. From To 1. Copy of Order dated 18.12.2017 passed u/s 147 r.w.s

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

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

Disallowance\nu/s 35AC (2) of the Act (hereinafter referred as the “new issues /\naspects”), have the subject matter of the re-assessment order dated\n15.04.2021(PB 62-69) passed u/s 143(3)/148 of the Act [which is\npresently being sought to be revised by the Id. CIT u/s 263

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

disallowance of Rs. 9,41,075/- u/s. 40A(3) of the Act.\n9. On culmination of the assessment proceedings, the Id. PCIT called for the assessment records for examination as per provision of section 263 of the Act. Ld. PCIT upon examination noted that as per concluding remark in para 5 of assessment order on page 163 to184, the assessee

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

263 of I.T. Act, 1961 dated 21.03.2023 setting aside the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 24.03.2021 without considering the ignoring the facts mentioned in our submission letter dated 17.02.2023. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. PCIT has erred in holding that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 24.03.2021 is erroneous

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.

disallowed the expenditure of Rs.2,86,918/- on account of provisions and audit fees and computed the income of the assessee at Rs.3,95,382/- as against Rs.1,08,464/- and after deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(a)(iv) at nil and completed the assessment at Rs. Nil vide assessment order u/s

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.

disallowed the expenditure of Rs.2,86,918/- on account of provisions and audit fees and computed the income of the assessee at Rs.3,95,382/- as against Rs.1,08,464/- and after deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(a)(iv) at nil and completed the assessment at Rs. Nil vide assessment order u/s

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.

disallowed the expenditure of Rs.2,86,918/- on account of provisions and audit fees and computed the income of the assessee at Rs.3,95,382/- as against Rs.1,08,464/- and after deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(a)(iv) at nil and completed the assessment at Rs. Nil vide assessment order u/s

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.

disallowance of Rs. 553 Crs. under normal provisions and Rs. 146 Crs under the provisions of Sec 115JB of the Act. 3. The case of the assessee was then taken up for revisionary proceedings u/s 263 by Ld. PCIT and notice u/s 263 of the Act was issued on 11.10.2018 proposing to revise

ASHUTOSH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance U/s 68/69 of the Act. Lastly, it was also 29 ITA 20/JP/2021_ Sh. Ashutosh Bhargava Vs Pr.CIT submitted that, according to the assessee, he had made transactions of share derivatives for the year under consideration and thus, it was mandatory for audit U/s 44AB of the Act as the transactions in the derivatives were more than the threshold limit

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)

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80-IC of the Act ignoring that assessee has explained the so called anomalies and such deduction has been allowed to the assessee in the past.” 5.1 The ld. AR appearing on the behalf of the assessee objected to the invocation of the provision of the section 263 of the Act and submitted that every

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LTD ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) JAIPUR , JAIPUR

disallowance of Rs. 9,41,075/- u/s. 40A(3) of the Act.\n9. On culmination of the assessment proceedings, the Id. PCIT called\nfor the assessment records for examination as per provision of section 263\nof the Act. Ld. PCIT upon examination noted that as per concluding remark\nin para 5 of assessment order on page 163 to184, the assessee

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

revision u/s 263 and the action of Ld.\nPr.CIT in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 could not be sustained in the eyes\nof law. Similar is the view of the Tribunal in assessee's group concern i.e.\nM/s Reliance Corporate IT Park Ltd. V/s Pr. CIT (ITA\nNo.2748/Mum/2015 dated 08/03/2017) wherein it has been observed by\nthe coordinate bench that when

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowance—Assessee’s appeal allowed There also so many judgments on these issues. 12. However, we want to place on record our legal objection for initiating proceedings u/s 263 for revision

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMUCH vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

263 dated 26.3.2024, by holding that assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.6.2021 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, arbitrarily. 1.1 That, Id. PCIT has further erred in holding that Id.AO has passed the order in routine and casual manner and without making adequate

SHRI KESHORAIPATAN SAHKARI SUGAR MILLS LIMITED,KOTA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer. In view of above discussion, it is clear that the A.O. has not examined the issue of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961 properly and completed the assessment in this case without conducting proper enquiry on the issue of the said deduction.” Show Cause Notice u/s 263 was issued

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. The scope of section 263 as peer above explanation is triggered where no inquiry has been made by ld. AO. If the ld. AO has made any short of inquiry in whatsoever manner as per his own satisfaction, then the revisionary power

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

revision under the explanation (2) clause (b) and clause (a) of section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Hence, the assessment order is set aside on the determination of book profit u/s 115JB and calculation of MAT as per law to be redone afresh de novo in the light of the observation made in this order and with direction