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

2 Where the case is selected Reference shall be made to the TPO only in the for scrutiny on non-transfer following three cases: pricing risk parameter a. Failure to report: AO comes to know that the assesse has entered into international transaction and / or SDT but has not filed Form 3CEB or has not disclosed the same

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

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

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

transfer pricing (sec 92 and related sections) is not applicable and the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on this aspect. The assessee further submitted that the observation that gross total income of Rs. 778,404,660 is less than the value of foreign remittance sent

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

13. The assessee referred to clause 3.2 of the CBDT circular and mentioned that the assessee case was not selected for scrutiny based on 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 ITA 04/Jodh/2021 PI Industries

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.”

transfer of immovable properties to FSPL (Fashion Suiting Pvt. Ltd.) by evading the Stamp Duty on circle rate and valuation on circle rate. Hence, necessary verification and enquiry may be done by the AO on this aspect and accordingly necessary action may be taken as per the I.T. Act. Further, no explanation has been offered as to what happened

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

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

prices by reducing the amenities which were originally offered. They have also made complaint about the goodwill/reputation of the company if the project remains uncompleted. Considering the good will of the company and reputation of the relevant Directors in the Real Estate Market the position of continuation of project with new name has been decided by the company. However looking

SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As regards the above argument of the assessee, it is relevant to note that estimate of such income was necessitated because the assessee failed to furnish information regarding purchase price of land and date of purchase. These are facts in the knowledge of the assessee and refusal to furnish the same leads

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

transfers the property to A for the same price at which he originally purchased it, he should be liable to pay tax on the basis as if he has received the market value of the property as on the date of resale, if, in the mean-while, the market price has shot up and exceeds the agreed price by more

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

13. 1,74,46,411 Plot at Panchsati Circle(Plot No. 53) 14. 3,34,425 Tubewell at Khara bypass land 15. Total 2,47,25,282  According to the ld. PCIT, while completing the assessment, the source of acquisition of the mentioned immovable assets has not been examined by the AO. However, the ld. AR submitted that during

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

13. Issue/Point No. 3: the ld. PCIT noticed that an advance of Rs 25 Lac was given in cash to Sh. Naveen Mahipal in two installments and the source of the credit was not examined by the A.O., thus, the PCIT directed the A.O. to examine and verify the source of credit by invoking provisions of Section

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

price\napprox 64.70% of actual sale consideration in its books of accounts and profit\ncalculated on this only and there is unbilled sale is the approx 35.30% of the actual\n/projected sales which is not recorded in the books of account and not offered for\ntaxation.He also stated that unbilled sales/on money is received in cash and out of\nbooks

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. M/S. MANOJ KUMAR VIPIN KUMAR , BIKANER

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Manoj Kumar Vipin Kumar, Central Circle, 118, New Dhan Mandi, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aarfm 0027 E

transferred by Chitravali Barter Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Swift Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. on 13.02.2012, out of which it paid ₹ 75 Lakhs to the appellant against the transaction which it had entered with the appellant, it cannot be assumed that the source of this amount is the amount deposited in the bank account of Jagdamba Trading, more particularly when there

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

transfer forms APB page 35 to 37; (2) account statement of investment in shares and brokers account APB pages 38 to 39; (3) broker note for sale of shares during the year from Suresh Rathi Securities Pvt Ltd APB pages 40 to 56. The assessee purchased shares through banking channel on 09/03/2012 and the said scrip was sold in F.Y.2014-15

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

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

2. Common issue urged in these appeals relate to disallowance of interest expenditure claimed by the assessee. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of generation and sale of electricity. During the year relevant to A.Y 2013-14, the assessee claimed interest expenses of Rs. 11.35 crores, which included interest payment of Rs. 3.00 crores made to M/s Adarsh

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

2. Common issue urged in these appeals relate to disallowance of interest expenditure claimed by the assessee. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of generation and sale of electricity. During the year relevant to A.Y 2013-14, the assessee claimed interest expenses of Rs. 11.35 crores, which included interest payment of Rs. 3.00 crores made to M/s Adarsh

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

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

13,87,72,635/- and disallowance of Rs. 32,38,02,815/-being non genuine expenses and accordingly whether the Id. CIT(A) is justified in relying upon the judgement of Hon'ble ITAT and High Court in the case of assesse for earlier assessment year when the facts of the case are distinguishable. 4. Whether in the facts