AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

263 dated 30.03.2022 holding that though the AO has denied the benefits of Section 11 and 12 of the Act to the assessee but at the same time, failed to tax the surplus income of Rs. 1,46,35,981/- and disallow

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order u/s 263

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order u/s 263

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order u/s 263

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order u/s 263

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order u/s 263

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

disallowance of Rs. 38,01,442/- being Provision for Standard Assets allowable on provision basis as per the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) on the finding that Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in appeal against order u/s 263

SUNITA AGARWAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Sh. Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sunita Agarwal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, 98, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Aeopa 9467 R

section 263, can set aside an order, for lack of proper inquiry or verification, and ask the Assessing Officer to conduct such inquiries or verifications afresh.” Thus, while applying the principles laid down in the case of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Vs DCIT(E) (supra), it is evident that in the present case, the A.O. had made all necessary enquiries

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the grounds that such infrastructural facility is not owned, wholly or partly, by the taxpayer which is an essential condition for claiming depreciation and further right to collect toll does not fall in any of the categories of 'intangible assets' specified in sub-clause(ii) of sub-section (1) of section

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.

section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act on 20.04.2021 determining the assessee's total income at Rs. 1,25,68,514/- by making an addition on account of disallowance of agriculture income of Rs.58,79,649/-. 4.1 The assessment order for the year under consideration was picked up for proceedings u/s. 263

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

1)(a) provides the CIT(A) could enhance such an assessment qua the under-assessed sum i.e. where the AO had dealt the issue in the assessment and was the subject matter of appeal. In category falling in (c) & (e), the CIT has been empowered to take an appropriate action under section 263 of the Act In category of case

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

263 of the Act. In this regard, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised 3 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT before the ld. PCIT and also relied on the written submissions filed before the Bench and the same is reproduced below: “Issue/Point 1: As per the details furnished, before

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

263 of the Act. The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us by challenging the revisional order. 3. The Ld.AR argued and filed a paper book spanning pages 1 to 467, which is kept on record. The Ld.AR argued that the property was given on rent and the said rent was declared as business income and accordingly, the depreciation

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

1)(iv) of the IT Act is an approved research and development unit. (d) To examine deduction u/s 80IA on power generation unit though the full deduction was 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

HITKARI AND SWARAJ ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,BARMER vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance as per the provisions of Section 14A of the Act, the said assessment order will be an erroneous one and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, as envisaged under the provisions of Section 263 of the Act. 70. In the case of CIT vs Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

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

1)(v) of the Act. (b) Non-disallowance of incentive payments made to employees u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, as the assessee has not deducted tax at source u/s 194H of the Act. (c) Non-disallowance of expenses u/s 14A of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld PCIT initiated revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. After hearing objections

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

1)(a) provides the CIT(A) could enhance such an assessment qua the under-assessed sum i.e. where the AO had dealt the issue in the assessment and was the subject matter of appeal. In category falling in (c) & (e), the CIT has been empowered to take an appropriate action under section 263 of the Act In category of case

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