CIT v. Vatika Landbase (P) Ltd.

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Shri Ram Gopal Sarraf, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

…dence brought on record to prove the fact that the payment mentioned in the seized material was actually received by the assessee cannot be sustained. Further, reliance was placed on Hon’ble Delhi High Court decisions in case of CIT vs. Vatika Landbase (2016) 383 ITR 320 (Del), CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43(Del) and the decision of Hon’ble M. P. High Court in case of PCIT vs. Pukhraj Soni (in ITA No. 53 of 2017 dated 06.03.2019). 15. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer has not provided any opportunity of cross examination of the Director of Manglam Group Shri N.K. Gupta from whom the cl…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Shri Ram Gopal Sarraf, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

…dence brought on record to prove the fact that the payment mentioned in the seized material was actually received by the assessee cannot be sustained. Further, reliance was placed on Hon’ble Delhi High Court decisions in case of CIT vs. Vatika Landbase (2016) 383 ITR 320 (Del), CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43(Del) and the decision of Hon’ble M. P. High Court in case of PCIT vs. Pukhraj Soni (in ITA No. 53 of 2017 dated 06.03.2019). 15. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer has not provided any opportunity of cross examination of the Director of Manglam Group Shri N.K. Gupta from whom the cl…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Shri Ram Gopal Sarraf, Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

…dence brought on record to prove the fact that the payment mentioned in the seized material was actually received by the assessee cannot be sustained. Further, reliance was placed on Hon’ble Delhi High Court decisions in case of CIT vs. Vatika Landbase (2016) 383 ITR 320 (Del), CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43(Del) and the decision of Hon’ble M. P. High Court in case of PCIT vs. Pukhraj Soni (in ITA No. 53 of 2017 dated 06.03.2019). 15. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer has not provided any opportunity of cross examination of the Director of Manglam Group Shri N.K. Gupta from whom the cl…

DCIT, CC-1, Jaipur vs. M/S. Dangayach Hotels Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 33/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 cuke Deputy Commissioner of M/s Dangayach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax, C-59, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Central Circle-1, Jaipur Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCC 7176 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 03/JP/2020 (Arising out of ITA No. 33/JP/2020) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Ass…

Shri Dholumal Alias Dholan Das Khatwani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 533/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 Shri Dholumal Alias Dholan Das Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Khatwani, Ward-3(2), 129, Bani Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Adrpk 6555 C Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri K.L. Moolchandani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jaipur Dated 07/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1(A) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Authorities Below Have Erred In Holding The View That The Statutory Notice U/S 147/148 Of The Act Issued In 'Incorrect' Name Is A Valid Notice. The Statutory Notice Issued In Incorrect Name Is Patently An Invalid Notice As Per Provisions Of Law & The Same Deserves To Be Quashed. 1(B) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Authorities Below Have Factually & Legally Erred In Turning Down The Various Objections Of The Appellant Regarding Initiation Of The Re-Assessment Proceedings U/S 147/148 Of The Act Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Case In Right Perspective & Also Without Addressing The Points At Issue. Thus The Findings Of The Authorities Below In This Regard Are Not Well Reasoned, The Same Deserve To Be Quashed Summarily.

…ded that those represents the undisclosed income of the assessee. The entries in the loose papers are required to be corroborated. For the said proposition, reliance is placed on the following judgments: (i) CIT, Central-1 vs. Vatake Landbase (P) Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 320 (Delhi) (ii) CIT, Central-II vs. S.M. Aggarwal (2007) 162 Taxman 3 (Delhi) 15 ITA 533/JP/2019 _ Shri Dholuram alias Dholan Khatwani Vs ITO (iii) Smt. K.V. Lakshmi Savitri Devi vs. ACIT (2013) 30 taxmann, cin, 117 (Hyderabad-Trib)] (iv) S. Narayan Reddy v. DCIT (2014) 42 taxmann. Corn 127 (Hyderabad-Trib)] (v) DCIT, CC-1 VS. C. Krishna Yadav (…