SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

263 made disallowance for PF/ESI. Held: order of AO not prejudicial to the interest of revenue 67-68 9 Changanacherry Co- op. Agrl & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. CIT/ITO (2023) 152 taxmann.com 466 (Cochin - Trib.) Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P in order u/s 143(1)(a) - no advance notice issued to the assessee disallowance deleted. 10 Income-tax Officer

BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act in Section 143(1)(a). To this effect, the detailed written submission of the ld. AR of the assessee is reproduced as under:- GROUND NO. 1A: ADDITION MADE WITHOUT AFFORDING ANYOPPORTUNITY AS MANDATED IN PROVISO TO SECTION 143(1)(a). 1. SUBMISSION 1.1. The adjustment made while processing the return

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

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, hence the order

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

section 263 that is, the law, with effect from 1-6-2015, deems an order as so, where any of the circumstances specified is, in the opinion of the competent authority, satisfied. It has nothing to do with the date of the passing of the order deemed erroneous, or the year to which it pertains. Being a part

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

section 263 that is, the law, with effect from 1-6-2015, deems an order as so, where any of the circumstances specified is, in the opinion of the competent authority, satisfied. It has nothing to do with the date of the passing of the order deemed erroneous, or the year to which it pertains. Being a part

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

section 263 that is, the law, with effect from 1-6-2015, deems an order as so, where any of the circumstances specified is, in the opinion of the competent authority, satisfied. It has nothing to do with the date of the passing of the order deemed erroneous, or the year to which it pertains. Being a part

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

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

Section 263\ncan only be invoked only if thereis a fault and there is an error and it was\nfor the CIT to have demonstrated some error.\nOtherwise also he has not suggested what further inquiries could and\nshould have been made in the admitted facts and circumstances of the\npresent case.\n4.3 C) Disallowance u/s 36(1

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 was to be set aside. 8 Career Point Limited, Kota. The ld FAO completed the assessment after verifying complete details and taking a view which

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)

disallowance because of the delay in deposit of contribution and those tax payers who have been processed and intimated u/s 143(1) of the Act would go scot- free even if there is delay in deposit of contribution and even if they do not deposit the contribution. 16. We are of the considered view that the ratio decidendi

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)

disallowance because of the delay in deposit of contribution and those tax payers who have been processed and intimated u/s 143(1) of the Act would go scot- free even if there is delay in deposit of contribution and even if they do not deposit the contribution. 16. We are of the considered view that the ratio decidendi

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)

disallowance because of the delay in deposit of contribution and those tax payers who have been processed and intimated u/s 143(1) of the Act would go scot- free even if there is delay in deposit of contribution and even if they do not deposit the contribution. 16. We are of the considered view that the ratio decidendi

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

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

1)-Exercise of revisional jurisdiction by CIT directing 32 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, Jaipur AO to make comprehensive scrutiny assessment under s. 143(2)(ii)-Invalid-It is the exclusive discretion of the AO to proceed under s. 143(2)(i) or 143(2)(ii) in a given case-AO having chosen

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

1)-Exercise of revisional jurisdiction by CIT directing 32 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, Jaipur AO to make comprehensive scrutiny assessment under s. 143(2)(ii)-Invalid-It is the exclusive discretion of the AO to proceed under s. 143(2)(i) or 143(2)(ii) in a given case-AO having chosen

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)

1)(viia). Thus allowable deduction was to be restricted to Rs 16.89 crore as per CBDT instructions Thus, excess deduction claimed was required to be considered for disallowance for the year under consideration. 4.1 She further observed that under the provisions of section 115 JB of the Act, provisions made for unascertained liability debited in P&L statement

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

263 CTR (Kar.) 153: (2013) 92 DTR (Kar) 111: (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (SLP) No. 11485 of 2016 dt. 5th Augu. 2016) followed. Conclusion: Considering the fact that the ground mentioned in show cause notice would not satisfy the requirement of law, as notice was not specific, the Tribunal has rightly allowed

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

263 CTR (Kar.) 153: (2013) 92 DTR (Kar) 111: (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (SLP) No. 11485 of 2016 dt. 5th Augu. 2016) followed. Conclusion: Considering the fact that the ground mentioned in show cause notice would not satisfy the requirement of law, as notice was not specific, the Tribunal has rightly allowed

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

section 251(1)(a) and the same thus cannot be accepted. However, the AO shall be free to take action as per law. 51. In light of the above discussions, having decided against the exercise of powers of the ld CIT(A) in bringing to tax the subject transaction, we do not deem it appropriate to examine and the address

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

section 251(1)(a) and the same thus cannot be accepted. However, the AO shall be free to take action as per law. 51. In light of the above discussions, having decided against the exercise of powers of the ld CIT(A) in bringing to tax the subject transaction, we do not deem it appropriate to examine and the address