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

1. The impugned order u/s 263 of the I T Act, 1961 passed by the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur is patently invalid, void, contrary to the provisions of law and also contrary to facts, material existing on records. 2. The ld. PCIT has erred in holding that the original assessment order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Assessing

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

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

143(2) and 142(1) on 11.07.2017 asking to the assesses to file the details and explanations on the ITR and seized documents, which was replied. In Assessment, AO has noted that during the course of search proceeding u/s 132 on 26.08.2015 a hard disc was seized (Annexure-AS-5) from the residence of Shanti Lal Maroo group Udaipur

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

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

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR vs. BHANWAR SINGH RATHORE , PALI

Accordingly, it is held that the AO rightly added Rs.19,06,200/- u/s 68 of the IT. Act,1961. The appellant fails on this ground. The ground raised by the appellant regarding this issue is, hereby, ...

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.347/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit-Central Circle-2 Bhanwar Singh Rathore बनाम/ Room No.68, Income Tax Office Bagh Niwas, Sumerpur Road Paota, C-Road Village-Mandali, Hemawas, Pali Vs. Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342 006. Rajasthan-306 401 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abepr-9925-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No.02/Jodh/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.347/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Bhanwar Singh Rathore Acit-Central Circle-2 बनाम/ Bagh Niwas, Sumerpur Road Room No.68, Income Tax Office Village-Mandali, Hemawas, Pali Paota, C-Road Vs. Rajasthan-306 401 Jodhpur, Rajasthan- 342 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abepr-9925-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

section 68 of the Act. 4. Agricultural income:-Rs. 44,00,000/- : The appellant claimed that the cash transaction of Rs.13,50,000/- on 21.05.2011, Rs.5,50,000/- on 03.09.2011, 4,00,000/- on 24.10.2011, 9,00,000/- on 25.10.2011, 2,00,000/- on 09.11.2011 and 6,00,000/- on 12.11.2011 was his agricultural receipts. Before me, the appellant furnished

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

143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In the return of income, the assessee has claimed the long-term capital gain (LTCG) as exempt under section10(38) of the Act on sale of shares of M/s Parag Shilpa Investments Ltd (in short, 'scrip'). The assessee purchased 2800 shares on 09/03/2012 for Rs.2,80,000/-. The said scrip

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

143(2) dated 17.08.2018 was digitally served on the registered email of the assessee- company through ITBA module by the DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur. Later on the case record were transferred to ITO, W-(1), Jodhpur who vide transfer memo dated 23.08.2019 transferred the case record to Circle-3, Jodhpur. On receipt of the case record, notice

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

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)

143(3) and addition was confirmed for contravening section 56(2)(viib) r.w. Rule 11 UA of Income Tax Rule 1962 (here in after Rule). The difference of amount of share premium with the NAV, calculated by the ld. AO was added back with the total 12 Patel Minerals Pvt. Ltd. income of the assessee. During hearing, the assessee submitted