M/S. DEEPAK & COMPANY INFRA PVT. LTD. ,SRI GANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANAGNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation on construction of road (As per BOT agreement). During the revision proceedings, the assessee had explained that its case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issues as mentioned above. Therefore the issue of deduction claimed u/s 80IA of the Act is beyond the jurisdiction of PCIT u/s 263

P I INDUSTRIES LIMITED ,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Pi Industries Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, Udaisagar Road, Udaipur. Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aabcp 2183 M

depreciation u/s 32 of the IT act. These facts were verified by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings and when the books of accounts were submitted to him for examination. 22. In regard to claim u/s 35(2AB) of the Act, the assessee submitted that deduction u/s 35 (2AB) of the IT Act 1961 amounting

M/S. PYROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

depreciation has been claimed on such assets. (vi). During the year, the assessee has obtained loans and advances from various persons and also have advanced loans to various persons as per details as given as per column No. 31 of the Audit Report u/s 44AB of the Act. However, it is seen that creditworthiness and identities of the lenders from

SECURE METERS LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Secure Meters Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, E-Class, Pratap Nagar Udaipur. Industrial Area, Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aaccs 8785 M

revision was not justified. a. C I T-1 Jaipur vs M/S Green Triveni Developer on 24 October, 2017(Rajasthan) D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 114 / 2015. b. CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) c. CIT v. Rajiv Arora (DBITA 283/2010 dated 28.08.2017 (Rajasthan) d. CIT v. Deepak Real Estate Developers (India) Pvt. Ltd. (DBITA 581/2011

PUSHP RAJ BOHRA,JALORE vs. PR. CIT – 1, JODHPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

revised on the same day declaring same amount of total income except an agriculture income of Rs. 58,17,777/-. The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 for the year under consideration where the issue for examination was identified as 'Agricultural Income' and notice u/s

M/S. NOKHA AGRO SERVICES,,BIKANER vs. PR. CIT, , BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Nokha Agro Services, 18 Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Km Stone, Nh-15, Tax, Sriganganagar Road, Bikaner. Bikaner. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffn 8164 R

263 of the Act because the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing officer has been made after detailed scrutiny of the books of account, after making enquiries, verification and examination of net interest, godown rent, municipal tax , insurance charges, depreciation, dunnage material expenses claimed and claim of deduction u/s 80IB (11A) for ware house receipts, handling, transportation and weigh

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal on or before the date the appeal is finally heard for disposal." Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018: “1. That on the facts

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK, , JODHPUR

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal on or before the date the appeal is finally heard for disposal." Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018: “1. That on the facts

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal on or before the date the appeal is finally heard for disposal." Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018: “1. That on the facts

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal on or before the date the appeal is finally heard for disposal." Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018: “1. That on the facts

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal on or before the date the appeal is finally heard for disposal." Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018: “1. That on the facts

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

revision had been finalized nor any kind of payment was made till the end of the F.Y. 2009-10. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any or all the grounds of appeal on or before the date the appeal is finally heard for disposal." Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 517/Jodh/2018: “1. That on the facts

SATYA NARAYAN DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation. 3. It was submitted that the Ld PCIT thereafter issued a show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act and in response, a reply was furnished to Ld PCIT along with documentary evidence and judicial decisions which were also part of assessment records. The PCIT passed the order u/s 263 of the Act and his findings read as under

SHREE NAVKAR REALINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Revision Proceedings u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 Ref: Notice no. ITBA/REV/REV1/2020-21/1029335962(1) dated 29.12.2020 received on 05.01.2020 With reference to above, your goodself required certain details, information etc. regarding the issuance of 100000 nos. of equity shares of face value Rs.10 at premium of Rs.40/- per share. Your goodself has raised certain issues wide above mentioned notice

THAR HEAT TRANSFER EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. ,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavthar Heat Transfer Equipments Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur. B-13 To 16, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aacct 7832 L Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca & Shri Abhinav Kothari, Ca Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Jodhpur Dated 20/03/2020 For A.Y. 2015-16 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised: “1. The Ld. Pr. Cit Has Erred In Invoking Section 263 & The Setting Aside Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Is Bad In Law & Bad On Facts. The Order Made U/S 143(3) Cannot Be Said To Erroneous Or Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Was Made After Duly Examining The Issue Relating To Capital Gains & The Said Order Cannot Be Said To Be Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Or Revenue. The Allocation Of Value Of Sale Of Land Was On The Basis Of Valuation Adopted By The Stamp Authorities & Was Also Verifiable. The Ld. Pr. Cit Had Erred In Observing That The Appellant Had Taken The Higher Value Of Agriculture Land. 3. The Appellant Crave Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter, Or Modify Any Of The Ground Of Appeal On Or Before Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

u/s 263. The assessee submitted the working of such allocation as under : a. Industrial Land 8906.32 sq.mts. 1,77,41,389/- X 1992 per sq. mts. b. Agriculture land [2.65 X1936 sq.yards X9] (46173.60 sq. fts. X 1,75,45,968/- 380 sq. fts) c. Other assets :  RCC Construction 1% 13,68,000/- Depreciation each year 2280X 600  Stone Patti

KAUSHALIYA DEVI DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainkaushaliya Devi Dhoot Vs Pr. Cit-1, 0, Lodha Street 1St A Road, Jodhpur Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanpd 4947 J

depreciation brought forward from earlier year is set off against the profits of wind power unit declared during the year under consideration, the assessee would not be eligibile to claim deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. Accordingly, he took the view that the assessment order is rendered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of 3 Kaushaliya Devi Dhoot vs. PCIT

SATYA NARAYAN DHOOT,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in respect of above said three issues

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) I.T.A. No. 49/Jodh/2022 (A.Y. 2017-18) Vs. Pcit-1 Satya Narayan Dhoot C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate Jodhpur 106, Akshay Deep Complex 5Th B Road, Sardarpura Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. Pan : Aanpd4945L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain Department By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain Date Of Hearing 03.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17 .01.2023 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran (Am) :-

depreciation should have been deducted from the profits generated from M- 77 before computing deduction u/s 80IA of the Act. Since it was not so set off, it has rendered the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 3 Satya Narayan Dhoot 4. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has taken the initial year

SHREE RAM COLLOIDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JODHPUR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeshree Ram Colloids Private Vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Limited, Tax (1), Jodhpur C-79, Mia, Phase-Ii, Jodhpur- 342 005 Pan: Aakcs5803L Appellant Respondent

u/s 32 or section 57. 9 ITA 344/JODH/2024 Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited 5.4. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the Assessing Officer has not looked into the nature of assets from which rent income has been earned and whether it has been shown in correct head and whether depreciation has been claimed correctly