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)

transfer pricing study. In view of the aforenoted discussion and the ratio of the these precedents, we direct the AO/TPO to examine the correctness of the figures placed on record by the assessee in support of its contention that the case of Goldstone Teleservices Ltd. was wrongly included by it in the list of comparables, which is actually not comparable

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

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

63-64). This fact is not denied by the AO. iii) Only because the Investigation Wing has drawn certain flow chart where from the bank account of Jagadamba Trading certain amount is transferred to Peacock Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. from where funds were transferred to various companies and finally an amount of Rs. 90 lakhs was transferred by Chitravali Barter

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

Transfer (DBFOT) Basis Notice by the concessionaire for payment of compensation on account of delay events, additional works/change of scope and breach of contract by the authority." In view of the facts furnished by the assessee, the amount of Rs.1,72,77,91,273/- shown in the ITR as other income, was treated as contract receipts of the assessee which

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

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

63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized document the year wise gross receipts are noted

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized document the year wise gross receipts are noted

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized document the year wise gross receipts are noted

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized document the year wise gross receipts are noted

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized document the year wise gross receipts are noted

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized document the year wise gross receipts are noted

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized document the year wise gross receipts are noted

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

63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized document the year wise gross receipts are noted

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

63,834/- 10,38,94,812/- Whereas in the "Total" column in the seized document, the yearwise gross receipts are FY 2010-11 2011-12 Total receipts noted in seized document in 5,82,45,480/- 1.02E+08 (total Column) However, in the "Total" column in the seized document the year wise gross receipts are noted

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

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

63-80), it was held that: "It is well-settled law that before passing the reassessment order, AO shall have to prepare and serve notice upon the assessee under s. 143(2). The Principal CIT observed that "no formal notice under s. 143(2) has been issued to the assessee". Therefore, these facts 37 | P a g e clearly show