SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR,MASUDA BIJAINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 131 of IT Act was issued to Sh Gautam Bhanwar lal Jain, Mumbai and Sh. Gyan Chand Bhanwar Lal Jain, Thane on 28.11.2016 for 05,12.2016, But none attended in response to summon u/s 131 nor filed any written submission. So, assessee failed to produce the parties. The AR of the assessee has submitted reply dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR, MASUDA BIJAINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

section 131 of IT Act was issued to Sh Gautam Bhanwar lal Jain, Mumbai and Sh. Gyan Chand Bhanwar Lal Jain, Thane on 28.11.2016 for 05,12.2016, But none attended in response to summon u/s 131 nor filed any written submission. So, assessee failed to produce the parties. The AR of the assessee has submitted reply dated

MRS. RENU SEHGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k Before : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, JM & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 837/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 cuke The ACIT Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur LFkk

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1,12,500. …………. ……………… 9. We can understand that they will not be available at one point of time. When the parties from whom the wool was purchased are not nomadics, it cannot be said that they have no permanent address and if they are the genuine parties, they should have some address. No person in the name of such party

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

d ckj iqu% lkspdj crk;sa fd vkius eSllZ nhiukjk;.k O;kikj izk- fy- ls fdruk :i;k m/kkj fy;k gS vFkok vkius p nsdj muls okil uxn jkf'k izkIr dh Fkh] Li"V djsaA mÙkj mÙkj& eSaus vkids }kjk fn[kk;s x;s ,usDlj AS Exibit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

d ckj iqu% lkspdj crk;sa fd vkius eSllZ nhiukjk;.k O;kikj izk- fy- ls fdruk :i;k m/kkj fy;k gS vFkok vkius p nsdj muls okil uxn jkf'k izkIr dh Fkh] Li"V djsaA mÙkj mÙkj& eSaus vkids }kjk fn[kk;s x;s ,usDlj AS Exibit

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

d ckj iqu% lkspdj crk;sa fd vkius eSllZ nhiukjk;.k O;kikj izk- fy- ls fdruk :i;k m/kkj fy;k gS vFkok vkius p nsdj muls okil uxn jkf'k izkIr dh Fkh] Li"V djsaA mÙkj mÙkj& eSaus vkids }kjk fn[kk;s x;s ,usDlj AS Exibit

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

d ckj iqu% lkspdj crk;sa fd vkius eSllZ nhiukjk;.k O;kikj izk- fy- ls fdruk :i;k m/kkj fy;k gS vFkok vkius p nsdj muls okil uxn jkf'k izkIr dh Fkh] Li"V djsaA mÙkj mÙkj& eSaus vkids }kjk fn[kk;s x;s ,usDlj AS Exibit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

d ckj iqu% lkspdj crk;sa fd vkius eSllZ nhiukjk;.k O;kikj izk- fy- ls fdruk :i;k m/kkj fy;k gS vFkok vkius p nsdj muls okil uxn jkf'k izkIr dh Fkh] Li"V djsaA mÙkj mÙkj& eSaus vkids }kjk fn[kk;s x;s ,usDlj AS Exibit

SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

D. The procedure shall not apply to an assessee for an assessment year (iv) Where assessment is being made pursuant to a – i. search and seizure action under section 132; or ii. requisition made under section 132A; or iii. survey action 133A. (v) where 50 per cent or more of the income from such business of an assessee is claimed

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

131 was also issued on 30.11.2019, however, again the assessee did not attend the proceedings. Considering the interest of natural justice another notices u/s 142(1) along with show cause notices were issued on 05.12.2019 and on 11.12.2019. Again, no compliance made by the assessee. After collecting information u/s 133(6) from concerned Bank, a specific show cause was issued

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

d ckj iqu% lkspdj crk;sa fd vkius eSllZ nhiukjk;.k O;kikj izk-fy- ls fdruk :i;k m/kkj fy;k gS vFkok vkius p nsdj muls okil uxn jkf'k izkIr dh Fkh] Li"V djsaA mÙkj& eSaus vkids }kjk fn[kk;s x;s ,usDlj AS Exibit-5 ds ist la[;k 37 ,oa mÙkj mÙkj mÙkj

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

d ckj iqu% lkspdj crk;sa fd vkius eSllZ nhiukjk;.k O;kikj izk-fy- ls fdruk :i;k m/kkj fy;k gS vFkok vkius p nsdj muls okil uxn jkf'k izkIr dh Fkh] Li"V djsaA mÙkj& eSaus vkids }kjk fn[kk;s x;s ,usDlj AS Exibit-5 ds ist la[;k 37 ,oa mÙkj mÙkj mÙkj

ALKA KHANDAKA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

D-178, Prop. M/s. Alka Gems, Ward 1(2), Kanti Chandra Road Bani Park, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADCPK0819N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sauravh Harsh, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 23/09/2025

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

131 or section 133 of the Act) is sought to be initiated; or (v) When the functionality to issue communication is not available in the system, 26 Lovely promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT the communication may be issued manually but only after recording reasons in writing in the tile and with prior written approval of the Chief Commissioner / Director General

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchases, amounting to Rs. 1,55,68,397/- was flagged on Insight portal for FY 2018-19 relevant to AY 2019-20 as per Risk Management Strategy of CBDT. 4.1 On the basis of above information, notice u/s 148A(b) was issued on 27.03.2023 and after considering the reply of the assessee, order u/s 148A(d) was passed

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

1), bei Vehicle rating of the gross vehicle weight and axel weight respectively as duly certified by the testing agencies for compliance of the rule 126, or in the maximum vehicle weight and maximum safe axle weight of each vehicle respectively as notified by the Central Government, or ill the maximum total load permitted to be carned by the tyre

M/S SILVEX & CO.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1003/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2006-07 M/s Silvex & Company (India) cuke Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ltd., Ward-7(2), G1-35 to 37, 47 & 48 EPIP, Jaipur