SHANTI LAL DEORA,SUMERPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Shri Shanti Laldeora, Vs. A.C.I.T., Hotel Inder Palace, Bhagat Circle- Pali Singh Circle, Sumerpur, Dist.- Pali-306902 (Raj.) Pan No. Adhpd 4172 A Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv. & Shrimohitsoni, Adv. Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08/09/2021

disallowance of deduction U/s 54F ignoring the fact that the appellate has invested the consideration received by him in construction and has rightly claimed deduction under Section 54F of the Act as per law. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. PCIT-1, Jodhpur grossly erred in exceeding his jurisdiction by issuing direction

NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

U/S 263 MATTER HAS BEEN SET ASIDE SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESSEE COULD PRESENT HIS ISSUES BEFORE THE A.O. 2.1. In the order under section 263 of the Act, the PCIT/CIT has not levied any tax and the matter has set aside to the file of the AO for passing a fresh order on the issue after affording proper opportunity of being heard

DINESH BOHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO,W-1, BARMER, BARMER, RAJASTHAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Bledinesh Bohra Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Unit 517, Option Primo, Andheri Tax-1, Jodhpur. East, Mumbai-400093 Pan No. Aanpb4468Q Assessee By Shri Gautam Chand Baid, C.A. & Shri Mayank Taparia, Advocate. Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar (Cit- D.R.) Date Of Hearing 20.02.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2025.

disallowance of agriculture income in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on 20-04-2021. 8. From the record, it is evident that the assessee has challenged this assessment on legal grounds as well as on merits before first appellate authority which is stated to be pending on the date of proposed revision. Meanwhile, the Id. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

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. 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

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

O.S. MOTORS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR` vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME , JODHPUR

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmim/S. O.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Pr. Cit Sainiks Motor Building, Chopasani Jodhpur-1 Road, Jodhpur-342001 (Raj) Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco 1896 R

disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld PCIT initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. After

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

disallowed by the ld. AO in the assessment order. The direction in this regard are vague and non specific. (e) To make to the total income and/ or to the book profit u/s 115JB wherever required in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax as discussed in para 12 of the order u/s 263. 3. That the order passed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 of the Act. Further the depreciation (amortization) claimed on road construction as per the CBDT circular No. 9/2014 dated 23/04/2014

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

u/s 80IA and disallowance of PF and ESI. On the above details, records and facts it is found that the Assessing Officer has already made examination and verification of the details and documents on the issues raised by the Pr. CIT and all the issues raised by the ld. Pr. CIT are already covered by the Assessing Officer

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

disallowed and added back to the total income as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act & to be taxed at special rate u/s 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. Which resulted in under charge of tax and interest having total tax effect of Rs.58,50,128/-." 8.1 The Ld. AR contended that the assessee submitted detailed reply before

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

revision u/s 263 for issue of non verification and enquiry of net interest allowed as expenditure is unwarranted and unsustainable due to the following reasons:- i) During the course of assessment proceeding the A.O. vide questionnaire has asked the assessee to submit details of interest received and paid together with explanation regarding sources of loans on which interest paid

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

u/s 263.” Even otherwise a bare perusal or bare reading of Section 263 of the Act, makes it clear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo moto under it, is that the order of ITO/AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Commissioner

RAVINDRA HERAEUS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDIAPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in light of aforesaid directions

revision notice u/s 263 that this case was selected for complete scrutiny and not for a limited scrutiny relating to only some of the issues, so the assessment cannot be closed by the AO only verifying the few issues. It was submitted by the ld AR that the assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny only and limited issues

BALOTRA COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. ,BALOTRA, BARMER vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmim/S. Balotra Cooperative Vs The Pr. Cit Marketing Society Ltd. Jodhpur-1 Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaab 0204 C

revision order passed in the hands of the above said assessee u/s 263 of the Act directing the AO to disallow