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

section 263 is set aside and that of the AO is restored. Appeal of assessee allowed.\n• Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT Jaipur Bench in Rekha Shekhawat v. PCIT (2022) 8 TMI 791 has held: Revision u/s 263 - Addition u/s 68

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

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act 4. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, PCIT Udaipur has grossly erred in passing order u/s 263 of the Act in respect of issues for which reasonable and plausible view was taken by Ld. AO considering judicial precedents and sufficient material available on record. 5. Under

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

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

68 of the Act on account of\nunexplained credits in the grab of bogus sales and thus, the total income\nwas finally assessed at Rs.16,49,44,849/- (PB 62-69) vide the order u/s\n143/147 at 15.04.21.\nLater on, the Id. CIT acting u/s 263 issued SCN u/s 263 14.02.2023 (PB\n122-127). In response thereto the appellant filed

GAYATRI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 263 of the Act upon the assessee which deserves to be quashed for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed the detailed written submission as under:- ‘’The impugned order passed u/s 263 is completely beyond the scope of S. 263 of the Act on various grounds, as discussed herein below. 1. Legal Position on S. 263 Judicial Guideline

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

u/s 263 merely because it is getting more revenue to the department. kindly refer CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 71 Taxman 585 (Bombay) 6. The issue in hand in the context of Section 263 is directly covered by the decisions in the following cases: 6.1. In Surendra Kumar vs. PCIT (2023) 222 TTJ_UO (Chd) it was held that

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

section 263 is set aside and that of the\nAO is restored. Appeal of assessee allowed.\n• Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in Rekha Shekhawat v. PCIT (2022) 8 TMI 791 has\nheld: Revision u/s 263 - Addition u/s 68

VIPUL KUMAR MODI ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR -I

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Addition u/s 68 - exempted u/s 10(38) denied - long-term capital gain shown by the assessee as arising from the sale purchase of the script of a penny stock company - 2nd round of litigation - HELD THAT:- AO during the original assessment proceedings has taken one of the possible views while framing the assessment under

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

section 263 is\nset aside and that of the AO is restored. Appeal of assessee allowed.\n• Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT Jaipur Bench in Rekha Shekhawat v. PCIT (2022) 8\nTMI 791 has held: Revision u/s 263 - Addition u/s 68

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

revision is called for on this account. 2. That the ld. Pr. CIT has further erred in setting aside the Assessment Order dated 20-12-2018 u/s 263 when he portrays the Assessment Order as erroneous but fails to establish or demonstrate as to how the Assessment Order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, more particularly when the twin

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

revision is called for on this account. 2. That the ld. Pr. CIT has further erred in setting aside the Assessment Order dated 20-12-2018 u/s 263 when he portrays the Assessment Order as erroneous but fails to establish or demonstrate as to how the Assessment Order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, more particularly when the twin

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)

Section 263 of the Act do not, in our view, thwart the assessment process in the facts and the context of the case. Consequently, we find that the foundation for exercise of revisional jurisdiction is surely missing in the present case. Resultantly, the order of the Pr.CIT passed under s.263 of the Act is set aside and cancelled

ARUN PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL),, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

revised u/s 263. 4(i) Procedure for assessment in Search and Seizure cases : Procedure for assessment in Search and Seizure cases is provided in the Manual of Office Procedure Vol.II (Tech.) published by DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX (ORGANISATION & MANAGEMENT SERVICES) CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES in February 2003. The relevant guidelines as provided In Chapter-3 related to Assessment Procedure

ZARI SILK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

revised u/s 263. 4(i) Procedure for assessment in Search and Seizure cases : Procedure for assessment in Search and Seizure cases is provided in the Manual of Office Procedure Vol.II (Tech.) published by DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX (ORGANISATION & MANAGEMENT SERVICES) CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES in February 2003. The relevant guidelines as provided In Chapter-3 related to Assessment Procedure

HARIRAM HOSPITAL,ALWAR vs. PCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

u/s 263 proposing to revise the assessment, on the ground that the AO had failed to verify the genuineness of unsecured loans. In response, the assessee raised objections against initiating revision proceedings under Section 263 and filed a detailed reply, explaining that the loans were received from close family members, were interest-free in nature and were supported by confirmations

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263 were applicable to instant case and Commissioner was justified in setting aside assessment order - Held, no In the case of CIT vs. Deepak Real Estate Developers (I)(P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 0377 (Raj) It has been held that Revision—Revision by commissioner of orders prejudicial to revenue—AO observed that return submitted by Assessee was duly supported

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

68. [Russian Technology Center (P.) Ltd. 2013 Taxmann.com 400 (Delhi-Trib)] 2.8. Mere inadequacy of an enquiry or insufficiency of material on record can be a ground to invoke powers under Section 263. Under identical set of facts, 22 Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur [2021] 214 TTJ (Chd.) 908, jurisdiction under Section 263

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

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

section 263 were applicable to instant case and Commissioner was justified in setting aside assessment order - Held, no In the case of CIT vs. Deepak Real Estate Developers (I)(P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 0377 (Raj) It has been held that Revision—Revision by commissioner of orders prejudicial to revenue—AO observed that return submitted by Assessee was duly supported

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 under section 263 is not permissible merely because ld. PCIT may entertain a different view on the issue. The stand adopted by ld. AO is one which is plausible supported by CBDT Circular and Supreme Court decision and, therefore, cannot be said to be erroneous in terms of the provisions of section 263. From the records on merit

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

revised u/s 263 and may not be treated as\nerroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.\n4. In response, the assessee filed replies on various dates i.e\n22.02.2023 & 28.03.2023 the gist of the reply is as under:\n(i) In regard para no.3.1 of show cause notice dated 15.02.2023 in\nrespect of disallowance u/s 14A the assessee contented