LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

282 which includes transmitting in the form of electronic record. Section13(1) of the Act, 2000 provides that unless otherwise agreed, the dispatchof an electronic record occurs when it enters into computer resourcesoutside the control of the originator. Thus, the point of time when adigitally signed notice in the form of electronic record is entered incomputer resources outside the control

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transfer upon Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General of National e- Assessment Centre and not upon any other Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. As is evident from the above, the Court came to the firm conclusion that irrespective of the system of faceless assessment that

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transfer upon Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General of National e- Assessment Centre and not upon any other Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. As is evident from the above, the Court came to the firm conclusion that irrespective of the system of faceless assessment that

M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,E-8, EPIP RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Transfer Pricing Officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 92CA.] (2) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

transfer\npricing orders wherein downward adjustments were made to the price\npaid for the equipment imported by the AE. The Assessee had filed an\nappeal to this Tribunal against the appellate order for Assessment Year\n2013-14 (arising from the assessment under Section 143(3) and the TPO\norder). This appeal was disposed in RKM POWERGEN PRIVATE\nLIMITED

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

282 (Raj) (v) Jora Singh Vs. ITO (2010) 42 DTR 409 (Lucknow Bench) In view of the above facts and position of law the Hon’ble ITAT is requestesd to admit the Additional Ground of Appeal and decision may be sympathetically be taken in favour of the assessee. It is submitted that in this case notice under section

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)

282 (SC) - Malbar Industries Co Ltd v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) In view of above therefore no case for invoking Section 263 of I. T. Act, 1961 and proceedings being wrong and bad in law the same may kindly be dropped. Ground No. 1 relates to objecting the action of Pr. CIT- “ that on the facts

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)

282 (SC) - Malbar Industries Co Ltd v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) In view of above therefore no case for invoking Section 263 of I. T. Act, 1961 and proceedings being wrong and bad in law the same may kindly be dropped. Ground No. 1 relates to objecting the action of Pr. CIT- “ that on the facts

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)

282 (SC). 48. In view of the aforementioned grounds, it is evident that the revision order passed under Section 263 is invalid, as it does not satisfy the dual requirements of being both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The AO conducted a diligent and reasoned assessment, making appropriate additions where warranted. Therefore, the order of the Ld. PCIT, Central

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

1), bei Vehicle rating of the gross vehicle weight and axel weight respectively as duly certified by the testing agencies for compliance of the rule 126, or in the maximum vehicle weight and maximum safe axle weight of each vehicle respectively as notified by the Central Government, or ill the maximum total load permitted to be carned by the tyre

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

transfer of the assessee’s appeal to the NFAC, none of the notices 15 Ram Niwas Yadav vs. ITO issued during the proceedings were ever physically served upon the assessee. Instead, these notices were merely uploaded onto the Income Tax Portal, which does not constitute effective service of notice as per the mandatory provisions of Section 282 of the Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

1) of Sushil Securities P Ltd\nfor AY 2018-19 dated 11.04.2019\n322-\n334\n70. Copy of Director Report and Auditors report of\nAngita Plaza P Ltd along with Financial\nStatements\n335-\n346\n71. Copy of Director Report and Auditors report of\nVidya Laxmi Fabrics P Ltd along with Financial\nStatements\n347-\n358\n\n52\nITA Nos.480/JP/2025\nDCIT vs. Karnani

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)

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

282/- and disallowance of Rs.11,59,34,654/- being “Exceptional Items” claimed in Profit & Loss Account. On appeal, the findings of the AO have been confirmed by the ld CIT(A) and aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Regarding ground Nos. 1 to 1.3, the ld. AR submitted that

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

282/- and disallowance of Rs.11,59,34,654/- being “Exceptional Items” claimed in Profit & Loss Account. On appeal, the findings of the AO have been confirmed by the ld CIT(A) and aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Regarding ground Nos. 1 to 1.3, the ld. AR submitted that

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

282/- and disallowance of Rs.11,59,34,654/- being “Exceptional Items” claimed in Profit & Loss Account. On appeal, the findings of the AO have been confirmed by the ld CIT(A) and aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Regarding ground Nos. 1 to 1.3, the ld. AR submitted that

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

price', is ab- initio void as per the provisions of sec.23of the Contracts Act, 1872 and thus non- est in the eyes of law. Hence, such SBNs cannot be treated as having arisen out of a contract for sale…….” It is held by the Hon'ble ITAT as under:- “70. From the reading of the above notification, it is abundantly

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

282 (SC). 28. Further it is settled law that initiation of 263 proceedings at the instance of Revenue Audit is impermissible. Reliance is placed upon: 20 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT • Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Sohana Woolen Mills (2006) 9 TMI 157 [Compilation 1-3] has held: A reference to the provisions of section