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

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

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

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

2. The assessment for the year 2016-17 was completed u/s 143(3) of the Actvide order dated 19.12.2018. The PCIT vide his notice dated 17.11.2020 & 7.12.2020 observed by invoking the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act that the assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground that there were large

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

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

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

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

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

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

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