M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

section 263, merely because he has a different opinion in matter; it is only in case of lack of inquiry' that such a cause of action can be open. 10.1.3 In CIT vs. Chemsworth Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 275 Taxman 408 (Kar) (DPB. it was held that: "Revision-Erroneous and prejudicial order-AO taking plausible view-AO completed the assessment without

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)

disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D(2), Commissioner having failed to make out that order of Assessing Officer was erroneous as well as prejudicial to interest of revenue, order passed under section 263

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

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

section 263 of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961.\n9. In the light of above discussion, assessment order passed by the AO\nin the case of the assessee is Set-aside (Partly) for fresh assessment\nby the AO on the issues of -\n(A) Disallowance

VIKAS OIL PRODUCTS,DAUSA vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

263 of the Act of 1961. Thus, these judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court as relied upon by the ld. AR are of no help to the assessee. In the case of CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. [1998] 98 Taxman 457 (SC), the assessment of the assessee-company was completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B

OM INDUSTRIES,DAUSA vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR, JIAPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

263 of the Act of 1961. Thus, these judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court as relied upon by the ld. AR are of no help to the assessee. In the case of CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. [1998] 98 Taxman 457 (SC), the assessment of the assessee-company was completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B

JR INDUSTRIES,DAUSA vs. PCIT-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

263 of the Act of 1961. Thus, these judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court as relied upon by the ld. AR are of no help to the assessee. In the case of CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. [1998] 98 Taxman 457 (SC), the assessment of the assessee-company was completed under section 143(3) read with section 144B

SMT. LATA PHULWANI,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263 based merely on ‘Change of Opinion’. e. That the ld. PCIT grossly has erred both on facts and in law, in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the material fact that during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee had brought on record all the materials and evidences relating

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)

disallowances on the issues involved impliedly after due application of mind. Therefore, the Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act do not, in our view

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

disallowing the benefit by referring to section 80IA(10) of the Act. Detailed reply was filed by the assessee appellant vide its letter dated 18.03.2013 and the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the submissions made and thereafter accepted the returned Income vide order dated 28.03.2013. [PB-I, Pg 36-43]. " The status of 263

SURESH KUMAR KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

section 263 order, the assessee can defend only to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/- as opening cash balance and not more than that. The disallowance

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)

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are inter-connected and inter- related against the order passed under section 263

LAXMI NARAYAN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowances on the issues involved impliedly after due application of mind. Therefore, the Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act do not, in our view

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)

263 of the Act. 11. Copy of certificates u/s 35AC in Form 58A.’’ 5.4.1 The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission, evidences and judicial decision relied upon submitted that while invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act, the twin condition is required to be satisfied which not fulfilled in this case

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

disallowing or making an addition on such issue or subject matter. It is settled proposition of law as held in the series of decisions, some of which has been relied upon by the ld AR of the assessee and cited (supra) that the ld. CIT(A) while exercising its power for enhancement U/s 251 of the Act cannot bring

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

disallowing or making an addition on such issue or subject matter. It is settled proposition of law as held in the series of decisions, some of which has been relied upon by the ld AR of the assessee and cited (supra) that the ld. CIT(A) while exercising its power for enhancement U/s 251 of the Act cannot bring

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

disallowing or making an addition on such issue or subject matter. It is settled proposition of law as held in the series of decisions, some of which has been relied upon by the ld AR of the assessee and cited (supra) that the ld. CIT(A) while exercising its power for enhancement U/s 251 of the Act cannot bring

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

disallowing or making an addition on such issue or subject matter. It is settled proposition of law as held in the series of decisions, some of which has been relied upon by the ld AR of the assessee and cited (supra) that the ld. CIT(A) while exercising its power for enhancement U/s 251 of the Act cannot bring

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 passed by ld. Pr. CIT Udaipur is bad in law and facts of the case as :- A) The order under section 143(3) dated 31/12/2019 and under section 147 Dt. 25/03/2022 are not in any way erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. (B) As the case has been subjected to scrutiny twice, the revision shall tantamount to third