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

u/s 263 of the Act by invoking Explanation 2 clause(a) and clause(b) of the Section 263 of the Act. At the outset, it is humbly submitted that Ld. PCIT has directly invoked the clause (a) and (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 263, (though the same are not applicable) in its Impugned Order, the same was not part

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 under the explanation (2) clause (b) and clause (a) of section 263 of the Act. The assessment order is set aside to be made afresh in the light of the observation made in this order. The AO is required to make necessary verification in respect of the observations made in this order after allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee

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.

revise the above order of the A.O. on certain grounds. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT passed order dated 03.02.2021 setting aside all issues to the file of the A.O. for re-verification and re- examination of all the issues raised vide notice u/s 263 of the Act. Ld. PCIT was of the view that the level of enquiry what should have

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

price for the purpose of Section 80A(6) of the Act. 30.11. The ld. D/R in his submissions relied strongly on the order of TPO and the method adopted by TPO for determining market rate of power. According to ld. D/R, TPO has adopted the rate of power at which Distribution companies purchase power from the Generating companies. We find

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

price for the purpose of Section 80A(6) of the Act. 30.11. The ld. D/R in his submissions relied strongly on the order of TPO and the method adopted by TPO for determining market rate of power. According to ld. D/R, TPO has adopted the rate of power at which Distribution companies purchase power from the Generating companies. We find

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)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 is wrong and bad in law in as much as power of the ld. Pr. CIT under this section do not extend to the assessments made in search cases by AO after obtaining mandatory approval of Addl. CIT u/s 148B of the IT Act, 1961. In this connection, it is submitted

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)

revision proceedings u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 is wrong and bad in law in as much as power of the ld. Pr. CIT under this section do not extend to the assessments made in search cases by AO after obtaining mandatory approval of Addl. CIT u/s 148B of the IT Act, 1961. In this connection, it is submitted

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s 263 is completely beyond the scope of Sec. 263 and therefore, deserves to be quashed.” 13. The ld. AR in addition to the paper book and written submission filed, also vehemently argued that the by invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act, the ld. PCIT has exceeded the jurisdiction. He Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s 263 is completely beyond the scope of Sec. 263 and therefore, deserves to be quashed.” 13. The ld. AR in addition to the paper book and written submission filed, also vehemently argued that the by invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act, the ld. PCIT has exceeded the jurisdiction. He Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s 263 is completely beyond the scope of Sec. 263 and therefore, deserves to be quashed.” 13. The ld. AR in addition to the paper book and written submission filed, also vehemently argued that the by invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act, the ld. PCIT has exceeded the jurisdiction. He Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s 263 is completely beyond the scope of Sec. 263 and therefore, deserves to be quashed.” 13. The ld. AR in addition to the paper book and written submission filed, also vehemently argued that the by invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act, the ld. PCIT has exceeded the jurisdiction. He Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263

HARISH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s 263 is completely beyond the scope of Sec. 263 and therefore, deserves to be quashed.” 13. The ld. AR in addition to the paper book and written submission filed, also vehemently argued that the by invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act, the ld. PCIT has exceeded the jurisdiction. He Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s 263 is completely beyond the scope of Sec. 263 and therefore, deserves to be quashed.” 13. The ld. AR in addition to the paper book and written submission filed, also vehemently argued that the by invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act, the ld. PCIT has exceeded the jurisdiction. He Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s 263 is completely beyond the scope of Sec. 263 and therefore, deserves to be quashed.” 13. The ld. AR in addition to the paper book and written submission filed, also vehemently argued that the by invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act, the ld. PCIT has exceeded the jurisdiction. He Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s 263 is completely beyond the scope of Sec. 263 and therefore, deserves to be quashed.” 13. The ld. AR in addition to the paper book and written submission filed, also vehemently argued that the by invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act, the ld. PCIT has exceeded the jurisdiction. He Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s 263 is completely beyond the scope of Sec. 263 and therefore, deserves to be quashed.” 13. The ld. AR in addition to the paper book and written submission filed, also vehemently argued that the by invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act, the ld. PCIT has exceeded the jurisdiction. He Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s 263 is completely beyond the scope of Sec. 263 and therefore, deserves to be quashed.” 13. The ld. AR in addition to the paper book and written submission filed, also vehemently argued that the by invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act, the ld. PCIT has exceeded the jurisdiction. He Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

u/s 263 is completely beyond the scope of Sec. 263 and therefore, deserves to be quashed.” 13. The ld. AR in addition to the paper book and written submission filed, also vehemently argued that the by invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act, the ld. PCIT has exceeded the jurisdiction. He Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263