ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

56(2) (viib) of the Act is included in definition of section 2(24) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013. Therefore, the provisions of these sections cannot be made applicable prior to A.Y. 2013-14. (vii) Reliance is placed on the judgement dated 30.10.2017 of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s. Motisons Buildtech

M/S NABH MULTITRADE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 and section 115BBE are not applicable in this case being the addition made under section 56(2)(viib

ANNU AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. PR.CIT, UDIAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Cuke Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Pr.Cit, S-47/48, S-47/48, Vs. Udaipur. Commercial Shops, Ipia 324005, Rajasthan, India. Pan No.: Aagca 5903 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya(Adv.) & Shri Devang Gargieya (Itp) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15 /09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

68 proviso and, (b) Receipt of large share premium u/s 56(2)(vii) and any other relevant section of the Act. with a direction to the AO to properly examine the identity (typed as entities) 85 creditworthiness of the shareholders/investors and also genuineness of the transactions and also to examine applicability of S. 56(2)(viib

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. TRUGOLD BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated hereinabove

56(2) (viib) of the Act is included in definition of section 2(24) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2013. Therefore, the provisions of these sections cannot be made applicable prior to A.Y. 2013-14. (viii) Reliance is placed on the judgement dated 30.10.2017 of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s. Motisons Buildtech

ANATOLE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

56(2)(viib) deserves to be deleted into to-to.\n2.5 As regards invocation of Section 115BBE of the Act, it is noted that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, AO added Rs.30,00,000/- in the hands of\nthe assessee company, as unexplained credits. The AO for the purpose of\ncalculating tax, on the additions made

DHANUKA REALTY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 56(2)(viib) it clearly comes out that it has been brought on statute book from assessment year 2013-14 onwards and it is not retrospective nor its language in any way suggest that it is to operate retrospectively. (vi) In regard to Retrospective Legislation it is submitted that the general principle is that provisions in a statue

RAJASTHAN TRANSMAT PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD 7(2),, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MEETHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

viib) have been brought in the statute book w.e.f. 01-04-2013 and even the Rules specified 11U and 11UA [for determining value of shares as per Explanation (a) (i) to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) have been inserted w.e.f. 29-11-2012. The ld. AR further submitted that when the shares were issued in FY 2011-12 then

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI vs. M/S ARAVALI PRIME CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., BUNDI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed with no order as to cost

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Who After Considering The Case Of Both The Parties

68 of the Act can he applied where the transaction is proved to be that of a share allotment that here the valuation for charging premium is not justified, it will make the provisions of section 56(2)(viib

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)

56(2)(viib)— Moreover, once all the details were made available before the CIT, he should have decided the issues instead of setting aside to the AO—Therefore, the order passed by the Principal CIT under s. 263 is quashed. 8.3 In [2016] 76 taxmann.com 226 (SC) CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd (DPB 17 ) Held: IT : SLP dismissed against High

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GODAWARI ESTATES PVT. LTD.,

2,00,00,000/- in total income of the assessee u/s 56(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Regarding the applying the provisions of section 56(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 we may submit as under: - a) As per provisions of section 56(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 “Income of every kind which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

56(2)(viib) was 10 DCIT vs. M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd. introduced by Finance Act, 2012 effective from AY 2013-14. Thus the provision relating to allotment of share at share premium is not applicable in the year under consideration. iii) Date wise list of share application money received by company for allotment of shares is enclosed

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)

56(2)(viib) of the Act, 1961. 2.1 Thereafter, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2 issued notice dated 3rd March 2023 providing an opportunity for hearing under section 263 of the Act proposing to modify the assessment order stating it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on account of the following issues

SOURABH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT,JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of “lack of inquiry” that such a course of action would be open.” 18 Sourabh Sharma vs. PCIT In another case of Narain Singla v. PCIT [2015] 62 taxmann.com 255 (Chandigarh - Trib.) it was held that when

ADITYA INFRAREALTORS LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

viib). Admittedly this sub section was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012. Simply because this section was inserted with effect from 01-04-2013 it cannot be inferred 5 M/s Aditya Infrarealtors Ltd. vs. ITO that any huge share premium receipt much beyond the fair market value prior to this insertion does not require any examination

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

56(2)(viib)—Moreover, once all the details were made available before the CIT, he should have decided the issues instead of setting aside to the AO—Therefore, the order passed by the Principal CIT under s. 263 is quashed. 4.3 In [2016] 76 taxmann.com 226 (SC) CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd (DPB 8) Held: IT : SLP dismissed against High

DINESH KUMAR CHAURASIA, TONK vs. PCIT CENTRAL, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

56(2)(viib)—Moreover, once all the details were made available before the CIT, he should have decided the issues instead of setting aside to the AO—Therefore, the order passed by the Principal CIT under s. 263 is quashed. 7.3 In [2016] 76 taxmann.com 226 (SC) CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd (DPB 17 ) Held: IT : SLP dismissed against High

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.

section 263 by the Commissioner proper and valid. [Para 16] (c) In the case of Jeevan Investment & Finance (P.) ltd. Vs CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 552 (Bombay], it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that: " ..... merely asking a question which goes to the root of the matter and not carrying it further is a case