CIT v. Pinkcity Developers

99 Taxmann.com 422Reported decision2018#18474 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 344,197 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 115BBESection 145(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 132

Issues it is cited on

section 23(3)section 66section 158bcsection 260arejection of books of accountsection 260section 145(3)best judgment assessmentsection 158binterest u/s 234amercantile system of accountingsection 40a(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Pinkcity Developers

Goyal Vegoils Limited, Kasar, Kota vs. DCIT, Circle -2, Kota

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

ITA 243/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 243/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 cuke Goyal Vegoils Limited DCIT, Vs. C/o Goyal Vegoils Villahe Kasar, Circle-02, Kota NH-12, Tehsil Ladpura, Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCG 2595 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA jktLo dh vksj…

Govindam Export, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jpr, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the results all the appeals filed by the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 429/JPR/2024[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 1998-99

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 260ASection 80H

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 429 to 433/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 1998-99 to 2001-2002 & 2003-04 cuke Govindam Export, Dy. Commissioner of Income Vs. C/o VKG & Co., “Shree Ramam”, Tax, Circle-01, Jaipur 58 Shree Gopal Nagar, Gopalpura Bye Pass Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAFG 7919 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent…

Priyanka Surana, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…iew. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises. Thus not entertained.” Although in the case of assessee no books rejected and hence on much strong footing. (e) In the matter of CIT Vs. Pinkcity Developers reported on (2017) 398 ITR153 (Rajasthan)/(2018)99 Taxmann.com 422 (Rajasthan) has held; “7.The counsel for the respondent contended that the Tribunal while considering the objection of section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act has rightly observed as under: "(3) Where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee, or where the method of accounting…

Balaji Jewellers, Jaipur vs. ACIT CC -4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…Best Judgment Assessment. Thus, on facts the view taken by the Tribunal is possible view. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises. Thus not entertained.” (e) In the matter of CIT Vs. Pinkcity Developers reported on (2017) 398 ITR153 (Rajasthan)/(2018)99 Taxmann.com 422 (Rajasthan) has held; “7.The counsel for the respondent contended that the Tribunal while considering the objection of section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act has rightly observed as under: "(3) Where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee, or where the method of accounting…

Rukmani Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir.-4 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…iew. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises. Thus not entertained.” Although in the case of assessee no books rejected and hence on much strong footing. (e) In the matter of CIT Vs. Pinkcity Developers reported on (2017) 398 ITR153 (Rajasthan)/(2018)99 Taxmann.com 422 (Rajasthan) has held; “7.The counsel for the respondent contended that the Tribunal while considering the objection of section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act has rightly observed as under: "(3) Where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee, or where the method of accounting…

CIT v. Pinkcity Developers (99 Taxmann.com 422) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax