AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 133(6) of the Act to make inquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original return, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of maximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no action could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss of revenue

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 133(6) of the Act to make inquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original return, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of maximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no action could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss of revenue

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 133(6) of the Act to make inquiries about claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act, the original return, which was invalid, would have attained finality and after lapse of maximum time limit to initiate any action under the Income Tax Act, 1961, no action could have been taken leaving the Department at total loss of revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since the original assessments were made and it was open to the\nIncome Tax Officer to make that presumption

AJD DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellant Hearing.”

section 133(6) of the Act. (iii) Cheil India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO Ward 3(3) (ITAT Delhi) ITA no. 6183/Del/2014 It is held that, it is a well-established position of law that genuineness of the claim cannot be denied merely because the party to whom payment claimed to have been made is not responding the notice issued

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since the original assessments were made and it was open to the\nIncome Tax Officer to make that presumption

WORLDWELFARE HEALTH FEDERATION,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

Bench: Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Ab. No Show Cause Notice Before The Rejection Of The Application Was Issued To The Assessee. 3. That The Ld. Cit(Exemption) Has Not Given Adequate Time For Submitting Responses To Notices U/S 133(6). Notices Were Issued On 24/03/2023 (Friday) To Three Parties & Without Waiting For Their Responses, The Order Of Rejection Was Issued On 28/03/2023 (Tuesday) In A Hurried Manner. 4. Appellant Craves The Right To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend In Any Manner The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Hearing.”

133(6). Notices were issued on 24/03/2023 (Friday) to three parties and without waiting for their responses, the order of rejection was issued on 28/03/2023 (Tuesday) in a hurried manner. 4. Appellant craves the right to add, alter, modify or amend in any manner the grounds of appeal on or before the hearing.” 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

133(6) to the bank only on 21.03.2022 (Refer AO Pg 1-2).\n3.2This chronology clearly shows that, at the stage of recording of reasons, the AO had\nnothing more than ITBA/NMS data. Such system-generated information at best gives rise\nto suspicion but does not constitute tangible material to form the requisite “reason to\nbelieve” as mandated

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

133(6) to the bank only on 21.03.2022 (Refer AO Pg 1-2).\n3.2This chronology clearly shows that, at the stage of recording of reasons, the AO had\nnothing more than ITBA/NMS data. Such system-generated information at best gives rise\nto suspicion but does not constitute tangible material to form the requisite “reason to\nbelieve” as mandated

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

133(6) to the bank only on 21.03.2022 (Refer AO Pg 1-2).\n3.2This chronology clearly shows that, at the stage of recording of reasons, the AO had\nnothing more than ITBA/NMS data. Such system-generated information at best gives rise\nto suspicion but does not constitute tangible material to form the requisite \"reason to\nbelieve\" as mandated

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

133(6) to the bank only on 21.03.2022 (Refer AO Pg 1-2).\n\n3.2 This chronology clearly shows that, at the stage of recording of reasons, the AO had\nnothing more than ITBA/NMS data. Such system-generated information at best gives rise\nto suspicion but does not constitute tangible material to form the requisite “reason to\nbelieve” as mandated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 133A (6) empowered the Income Tax Authority to record the statement on oath, therefore the recording of statement u/s 131 in this case was not ultra-vires. 6 Whether facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is justified in not appreciating the in other important fact that during the assessment proceedings of the assessee

APOORVA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

TDS deducted of Rs. 2,17,807/- and on the basis of said information and non filing of return, it was concluded that the income has escaped the assessment. 3.2 After recording the reasons by recording a categorical finding that assessee has received gross receipts amounting to Rs.21,60,840/- a notice u/s 133(6) dated

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

M/S STANFORD DEVELOPERS,NEEMRANA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BEHROR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him.

133(6) further draws adverse inference Page 14 of 22 ACHFS3932Q- STANFORD DEVELOPERS A.Y. 2018-19 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074122069(1) regarding its genuineness. Additionally, the PAN of Vinayak Constructions, another entity involved in the transactions, was found to be invalid, further strengthening the case against the Appellant. The mere existence of an entry in the books of accounts of the Appellant itself