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

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 that

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

68, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Cash credit (Bogus sales) - Assessment year 2015-16- Assessee company filed its return of income for relevant year - Case was selected for limited scrutiny on ground of mismatch in sales turnover and suspicious sale transaction in shares - Assessment was completed under section 143(3) - Thereafter, Commissioner issued

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

68, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Cash credit (Bogus sales) - Assessment year 2015-16- Assessee company filed its return of income for relevant year - Case was selected for limited scrutiny on ground of mismatch in sales turnover and suspicious sale transaction in shares - Assessment was completed under section 143(3) - Thereafter, Commissioner issued

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

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

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1,86,45,067. Out of the total cash sales, cash sales amounting to Rs. 80,00,000 has been found to be non-genuine and added under section 68 of the Act. Explanation offered to substantiate the cash sales has been arbitrarily rejected without holding that the sales is duly recorded in the books and is also supported

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)

1-2 of paper book) did not make any reference to the Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act. Therefore, we hold that the ld. PCIT erred in holding assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue after referring to Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

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)

1-2 of paper book) did not make any reference to the Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act. Therefore, we hold that the ld. PCIT erred in holding assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue after referring to Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

68 of the Act. It was also clarified that some of these loans represented opening balances from earlier years, which had already been accepted and assessed without dispute.Despite the above, the PCIT proceeded to invoke jurisdiction under Section 263 and passed the impugned order directing fresh examination by the AO. From the available records, it is noted that

MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

263, alleging that the ld. AO failed to tax Rs. 1,44,35,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69. The ld. PCIT further proposed invoking Section 115BBE to levy a higher tax rate on the alleged unexplained income. 8. That the ld. PCIT’s assertion was that the AO did not adequately verify the ownership and source

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

263: Gabriel\nIndia Ltd. [1993] 71\nTaxman 585 (Bom.)\n[15.04.1993].\nPCIT should check\nsubmissions placed\non record: Shri\nManjunatheshwar\nPacking Products &\nCamphor Works\n[1998] 96 taxman 1\n(SC).\nd. Finding Compulsory\nby PCIT: i). D.G.\nHousing Projects\nLtd. [2012] 343 ITR\n329 (Delhi)\n[01.03.2012]\nii). J.P. Srivastava\n& Sons (Kanpur)\nLtd.\nVs.\nCommissioner Of\nIncome

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

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

68-69) and thereafter passing impugned\norder u/s 148A(d) (PB 79-80) and also impugned notice u/s 148 both dt.30.03.2022\nwhereas, the correct and legally valid jurisdiction remained with the international charge\nCircle (INTL. TAX), Jaipur. Accordingly, objections were raised letters dt.27.04.2023 (PB\n3-12) and again vide another letter dt.23.07.2023 (PB 71-72). The same was disposed

NARESH KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

263 ORDER 5.3.i During the course of re-assessment proceedings, NFAC issued notice under Section 133(6) to the broker and received the broker’s bank statement in response thereto. 19 Naresh Kumar Bhargava vs. PCIT 5.3.ii According to ld. PCIT, bank statement of the assessee showing these transactions with the broker were not disclosed during the course

LAXMI NARAYAN SAINI,SIKANDRA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

section 263 the learned CIT has observed on page\n9 of the order that the learned AO while completing the assessment failed to apply his\nmind on the material available on record. The learned CIT has held that for accepting\nthe excess stock and unrecorded investment in construction of show-room etc as part\nof regular business income