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

section 263 issued notice to the assessee by treating this assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The 5 points was asked to explain by the Ld.PCIT in his impugned notice. But finally, related to two points for claiming of depreciation

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.”

section of the Income Tax Act. The same is therefore set-aside cancelled and restored back to the file of AQ on this issue, in view of the detailed discussion made in preceding paras, with the direction to pass fresh assessment order after conducting proper verification and enquiries on this issue and based on such verification and enquiry make necessary

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

section 92E. This is not a situation in the case of the assessee and report was submitted and also during the assessment the same was submitted. The second situation where in previous assessments if any addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment of more than ten crores and addition being upheld in appellate proceedings is also not applicable

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

Section 92E at all or has not disclosed the said transactions in the Accountant’s report filed; (b)where there has been a transfer pricing adjustment of ₹10 Crore or more in an earlier assessment year and such adjustment has been upheld by the judicial authorities or is pending in appeal; and (c)where search and seizure or survey operations

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 and amortization expenses of the assessee as per provisions of section 32(1)(ii) of the Act after seeking relevant details and documents from the assessee. Further, reliance was placed on explanation (2) to section 263

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

section 263 could not draw any oxygen from the show cause notice. The present assessee's case is no different from the case of Genesis Colors (P) Ltd. vs. CIT and other decisions referred here in above and accordingly, order passed u/s. 263 cannot be sustained in law. 8. From the record and more particularly assesse's Paper Book

SHRI JAITESHWAR SEVA SANSTHAN,JODHPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Us By Challenging The Revisional Order.

depreciation u/s 32 or section 57. 10 ITA 344/JODH/2024 Shree Ram Colloids Private Limited addressed, leaving no grounds for invoking the provisions of Section 263

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

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

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

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

Section 263 of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 2 ITA 3/JODH/2021 PYEROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT LTD VS PR. CIT, UDAIPUR 1. That the Impugned order u/s 263 of the Act dated 18.02.2020 and notice u/s 263 are bad in law and on facts of the case and hence the same may kindly

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

depreciation, dunnage material expenses claimed and claim of deduction u/s 80IB (11A) for ware house receipts, handling, transportation and weigh bridge receipts and no claim of remuneration to working partners. As such your views that assessment was completed in undue haste and without making inquiries and investigation, so the order passed by the A.O. is erroneous and prejudicial

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.”

section 263 and the setting aside of the order passed u/s 143(3), is bad in law and 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 and the said order

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

263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 held that same is not allowable. In ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 ground about allowability of Provision for Standard Assets has not been decided by the Hon'ble ITAT. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred

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

263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 held that same is not allowable. In ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 ground about allowability of Provision for Standard Assets has not been decided by the Hon'ble ITAT. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred

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

263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 held that same is not allowable. In ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 ground about allowability of Provision for Standard Assets has not been decided by the Hon'ble ITAT. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred

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

263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 held that same is not allowable. In ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 ground about allowability of Provision for Standard Assets has not been decided by the Hon'ble ITAT. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred

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

263 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 held that same is not allowable. In ITA No 143/Jodh/2015 dated 19/05/2017 ground about allowability of Provision for Standard Assets has not been decided by the Hon'ble ITAT. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred