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

Transfer price risk parameter. In this regard the assessee mentioned that provisions of section 92CA which also says that where it is necessary or expedient to do so the AO 10

BHAMASHAH SUNDARLAL DAGA CHARITABLE TRUST,BIKANER vs. CIT - EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.278/Jodh/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Bhamashah Sundarlal Daga The Commissioner Of Charitable Trust, V Income Tax-Exemption, Bagree Mohallan, S Jaipur. Bikaner – 334001. Pan: Aaetb1013C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha – Ar Revenue By Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2023

10 Bhamashah Sundarlal Daga Charitable Trust [A] is earlier” is in the context of the newly formed Trust/institutions. For the existing Trust/Institution, the time limit for applying for Regular Registration is within six months of expiry of Provisional registration if they are applying under sub clause (iii) of the Proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act. This will

SHRI SHESHAVTAR 1008 SHRI KALLAJI VEDPITH EVAM SHODH SANSTHAN,NIMBAHERA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

10,740/- during the financial year, out of which Rs. 1,14,06,043/- were corpus donations. The AO observed that Rs. 1,00,13,516/- of these corpus donations were anonymous. The AO, therefore, called upon the Trust to explain why the anonymous donations should not be taxed under section 115BBC(1) of the IT Act. The assessee vide

ABDUL RASHID,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

price being less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, the appellant was not required to deduct TDS under section 194-IA of the Act. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of section 194-IA of the Act which reads as below:- “1 provisions of Section 194-IA (1) Any person, being a transferee, responsible

ABDUL KADIR,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

price being less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, the appellant was not required to deduct TDS under section 194-IA of the Act. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of section 194-IA of the Act which reads as below:- “1 provisions of Section 194-IA (1) Any person, being a transferee, responsible

ABDUL AJEEJ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

price being less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, the appellant was not required to deduct TDS under section 194-IA of the Act. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of section 194-IA of the Act which reads as below:- “1 provisions of Section 194-IA (1) Any person, being a transferee, responsible

ABDUL HAKIM,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

price being less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, the appellant was not required to deduct TDS under section 194-IA of the Act. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of section 194-IA of the Act which reads as below:- “1 provisions of Section 194-IA (1) Any person, being a transferee, responsible

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

price of the product/service of the business and the institution is following the same principal by selling property. Builders or real estate developers do the same activity which is being done by the assessee such as purchase and sale of land at commercial principles and rates, development of land and 42 | P a g e sale by auction or otherwise

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

transfer from the old accounts. As per the ld. AR, the background of agriculture land at khara bypass 0.83 hectare and land at khara 3.56 hectare has already been deliberated upon in length at point no. 2 of this letter. Ld. AR submitted that these two are basically offset 18 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT accounts which cot debited

SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

transferred share application money to the assessee. Accordingly, he disallowed the interest claim of Rs. 3.00 crores made in A.Y 2013-14. The assessee had claimed interest expenditure of Rs.11.94 crores against the loan taken from M/s Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Ltd in AY 2014-15. The AO disallowed interest expenditure of Rs. 11.94 crores on the very same

SAMBHAV ENERGY LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

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

transferred share application money to the assessee. Accordingly, he disallowed the interest claim of Rs. 3.00 crores made in A.Y 2013-14. The assessee had claimed interest expenditure of Rs.11.94 crores against the loan taken from M/s Adarsh Credit Co-operative Society Ltd in AY 2014-15. The AO disallowed interest expenditure of Rs. 11.94 crores on the very same

ASHOK PANWAR HUF,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

10(38) of the Act. The Ld.AO has treated the entire transaction as bogus and, therefore, he added back the total sale price of Rs.1,58,67,077/- under section 68 of the Act to the total income of the assessee. The Ld.AO also calculated the commission amount to Rs. 6,55,255/- and total amount comes to Rs.1

PATEL MINERALS PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

price of Rs 30/- per share while face value per share is Rs 10/- only. b) Company has obtained fair market value report as per requirement of Rule 11UA and submitted the copy of it before Ld AO and Ld CIT A ( A copy of which is also enclosed Paper Book Page No from to ) . c) Ld AO made addition

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

transfer entry from Individual Balance Sheet to the consolidated/Merged Balance Sheet of the Proprietorship concern M/s Yogesh Enterprises. All the bank statements of the assessee are on record and in case there had been any receipt of unsecured loan from Virendra Agarwal then definitely it would have been shown therein. Our attention was also drawn to the statement containing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

transfer to the specified business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose; All assets were newly acquired for the hospital. (iii) where the business is of the nature The specified business was hospital referred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (c) of sub-section (8), such business (iv) (ab) on or after the 1st day of April

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

transfer to the\nspecified business of machinery or plant\npreviously used for any purpose;\nAll assets were newly acquired for the\nhospital.\n(iii) where the business is of the nature The specified business was hospital\nreferred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (c)\nof sub-section (8), such business\n(iv) (ab) on or after

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

transfer to the\nspecified business of machinery or plant\npreviously used for any purpose;\nAll assets were newly acquired for the\nhospital.\n(iii) where the business is of the nature The specified business was hospital\nreferred to in sub-clause (iii) of clause (c)\nof sub-section (8), such business\n(iv) (ab) on or after

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 153A of the Act and also contended that the additions were wrongly made in hands of the Assessee merely on the basis of bank accounts or information in 10 Indu Bal Porwal vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Udaipur relating to accounts, wherein she is just authorized signatory and entire asset/income belong to BWR Trust, which is family trust formed