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

9. It was further submitted that the ld PCIT had also recorded various observations that the case was selected for transfer pricing risk parameter which is without any basis or evidence. It was submitted that the code assigned to the AO by the CBDT for scope of enquiry is relevant to non Transfer pricing risk parameters and as such

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)

9. It is respectfully that in order to comply and satisfy requirements of Section 56(2)(viib) and Rule 11UA company is required to obtain valuation report from Accountant and valuation adopted by it should be as per Discounted cash flow method. Company has obtained valuation report from Accountant Saruparia Somani & Co - Chartered Accountants and as per them valuation

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

9. The CIT(A), after considering the assessee's submissions the remand recom furnished by the AO and the assessee's counter comments, found that the source of deposits in the bank account stood explained and accordingly deleted the addition of Rs 39,70,000-made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in land. 10 However

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

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

9,15,77,230/- 25,94,25,580/- On this Annexure-C and table, the AO asked the explanation of the assessee as to why the income may assessee company may not be determined on the basis of the actual sales as calculated in the above table for the respective years. In response thereto the assessee has filed the detailed

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 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

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 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

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

9 Bhamashah Sundarlal Daga Charitable Trust [A] charitable activity may apply first for the ‘Provisional Registration ‘under the Act. After getting the Provisional Registration the Trust/Institution have to apply for Regular registration. These kind of Trust/Institutes will fall under sub clause (iii) of the Proviso to Section 80G(5) of the Act, since they have obtained Provisional registration

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

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

9. Since, as per amendment in section 115 BBE, which prohibits the set off of any type of loss was inserted by Finance Act, 2016 and in this regard, it was held in the case of CIT (Mumbai) V Essar Technology Limited, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically mentioned that the wings of the government has been vested with

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

9,15,77,230/- 25,94,25,580/-\nOn this Annexure-C and table, the AO asked the explanation of the assessee as to\nwhy the income may assessee company may not be determined on the basis of the\nactual sales as calculated in the above table for the respective years. In response\nthereto the assessee has filed the detailed

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

2 to section 147 are applicable in this case, obtained necessary sanction separately to issue notice under section 148 from Principal Commissioner of Income Tax as per the provisions of section 151 of the IT Act, 1961. Notice under section 148 of the IT Act was issued on 26.03.2021 and duly served upon the assessee through ITBA on registered mail

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

price of Rs.1,58,67,077/- under section 68 of the Act to the total income of the assessee. The Ld.AO also calculated the commission amount to Rs. 6,55,255/- and total amount comes to Rs.1,65,22,302/-. The Assessing Officer further added Rs.8,08,458/- related to 145(3) of the Act on account of increase

ASSTT. 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