SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

2), Kota\ntransferred this case back to the O/o Ward 4(1), Chandigarh vide office letter No.\n1064 dated 9.10.2017 on the ground that the appellant as presently not residing\nthere and was not traceable.\n5.3 During the assessment proceeding despite giving multiple opportunities, the\nappellant did not file any submission before AO. Accordingly order u/s 144r.w.s.\n147

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

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned

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)

2) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the challenge to the notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2024 for A.Y. 2021-2022 on the sole premise that the said notice could have been issued only through automated allocation in faceless manner and not by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), cannot be sustained

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)

2) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the challenge to the notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2024 for A.Y. 2021-2022 on the sole premise that the said notice could have been issued only through automated allocation in faceless manner and not by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), cannot be sustained

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

148\nissued even when lime limit of issuing notice u/s 143(2) was available. A pure\nquestion of law – additional ground is admitted.\n(v) CIT Vs. Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Learned.\n(1992) 193 ITR 624 (Ker)\nAn appellant before the Tribunal can raise any new or additional point for the\nfirst time in appeal before

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

148 of the Act. The assessee trust would\nnever filed its ITR if department has not carried out survey proceedings.\nThe assessee trust is required to be audited as per provisions of section 12 of\nthe I.T. Act, 1961. Though Section 12A(1)(b) provides that the exemption u/s\n11 will be available only if the accounts are audited

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

148 of the Act. The assessee trust would\nnever filed its ITR if department has not carried out survey proceedings.\n\nThe assessee trust is required to be audited as per provisions of section 12 of\nthe I.T. Act, 1961. Though Section 12A(1)(b) provides that the exemption u/s\n11 will be available only if the accounts are audited

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

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

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

148 of the Act on\n28/03/2019 merely as a process of review, the reassessment is not legally invalid. The\nappellant relied on various judicial decisions that the AO cannot reopen concluded\nassessment merely to re-examine any transaction for non-application of his mind on the\nmaterials already with him.\n\n5.13 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

section 2451 of the Act. Thirdly, the\ndepartment concedes that the order of Settlement Commission has not been\nchallenged further. Under the circumstances, allowing the department's appeal,\nlevying tax on the same amount from the assessee would be wholly impermissible.\nIn fact, it also would be opposed to the observations of the Assessing Officer and\nthose of the Tribunal

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

TDS provisions have not been complied properly. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for claiming exemption under section 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was also submitted by the ld CIT-DR that in view of above findings, the activities of the assessee Trust falls under the purview of Section 12AA

BRIJ BIHARI AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 , JAIPUR

section.\nAppellant prays reopening the assessment under the facts and\ncircumstances of the case and is not in accordance with law, thus\nconsequent order deserves to be quashed.\n2. On facts and circumstances of the matter the Id. CIT(A) has erred in\nconfirming the addition of Rs. 1,76,342/-made by Id.AO on the basis of\nan excel

ARUN BHARDWAJ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

2). It was held that the Assessing Officer has to give reasons for issuing a notice under Section 148 and there should be some prima facie grounds before him, for taking such action. Therein, the reasons recorded by the Income Tax Officer that proper investigation regarding some loans is necessary, was itself faulted. The conclusion of the Assessing Officer

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

148 for the making of the\nreturn or by the notice under the first proviso to section 115WF or under the first\nproviso to section 144 to show cause why the assessment should not be completed\nto the best of the judgment of the Assessing Officer, whichever is earlier;\n(c) where an action has been taken under section

BARODA RAJASTHAN KHESTRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 148. The NfAO passed the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 dt. 25/03/2022 (PB page no 43- 45), by making an addition of Rs. 4,76,30,000/- (13705000 + 33925000) in the total income of the assessee. 3. The assessee “BRKGB” had declared the financial results and in the Balance Sheet of year under consideration it has shown a total

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

TDS already deducted with the Government\nor not. In the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set aside the matter to\nthe file of the AO. The AO is directed to conduct a de-novo assessment for these\n\nadditions. Needless to mention, the assessee company should be provided a proper\nopportunity to present its case. Further

DHANUKA REALTY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

148 of the I.T. Act proceedings of re-assessment could be started on getting new information and in this case no new facts have come into the knowledge of the A.O. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 2 This ground of appeal is against sustenance by the Id. CIT(A) of levy of tax u/s.56

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

148 or (b) to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for his assessment for that purpose. In the present case the assessee during the original assessment had filed various details as requisitioned by ld. Ao and only after examining the same ld. AO had accepted the income as returned. Thus there was no failure on the part