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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

price, then no addition is called for under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act. This Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ramehwaram Strong Glass (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (supra) has considered this issue of adopting the prescribed method at the choice of the assessee in para 4.5 as under :- 12 M/s. Nabh Multitrade Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. “4.5 We have

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

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

RAMESHWARAM STRONG GLASS (P.) LTD.,AJMER vs. ITO, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

price to premium in the business. In fact, all these are not possible in the case of newly startup/set up company being in existence of 8-10 years. 14. AY 2013-14 is not the rightful year: Alternatively and without prejudice to the above contention, even assuming it is held that the revenue is justified in their action, a careful

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

price paid for settling a \ndispute by Shri R.K.Verma. So, there exists a quid-pro-quo in this \ntransaction. In a legal context, it refers to a situation where one party provides \nsomething of value to another party in exchange for something in return. The amount has not been \nreceived without consideration. Consideration is something of value exchanged \nbetween

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 neither

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 is not to be excluded

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: • Disallowance

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

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. From

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