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

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)

14, items A to E. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Income from other sources", namely :— (i) dividends ; xx xx xx xx (vii) where an individual or a Hindu undivided family receives, in any previous year, from

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

14. For exercise of power under s. 263, it is mandatory that the order passed by the AO should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case, the AO did not make any addition for the reasons recorded at the time of issue of notice under s. 148. This position is not disputed

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

section 92E. This is not a situation in the case of the assessee and report was submitted and also during the assessment the same was submitted. The second situation where in previous assessments if any addition on account of transfer pricing adjustment of more than ten crores and addition being upheld in appellate proceedings is also not applicable

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

14. The assesseefurther mentioned that the assessee case does not fall under clause 3.3, which read as under: 3.3 Cases selected for scrutiny on non-transfer pricing risk parameters but also having international transactions or specified domestic transactions, shall be referred to TPOs only in the following circumstances: (a)where the AO comes to know that the taxpayer has entered

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

14. The order of the CIT(A) has not been contested by the assessee in appeal and has become final. 15. During the penalty proceedings detailed submissions have been made which are discussed pointwise hereunder. 15.1 The appellant has furnished details of the sale of agriculture land at Village, Badi, Udaipur, which was not shown by her in the return

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

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 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

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 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

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

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

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 the course of Proceedings, Fixed assets Chart as well as Interest account were

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

14 ITA 25/Jodh/2021 Sunita Agarwal Vs PCIT assessment. Further the reflection of such advance in the balance sheet as clear from the order of the PCIT is a sufficient and adequate proof regarding the nature and source of transaction. For the asset side of the balance sheet, the liabilities as well as the capital balance constitute the basis

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

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

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

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