SONU AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1) DATED 30.05.2022 wherein the assessee was given a show-cause as to why the total transaction amount of Rs. 81,84,838/- shall not be treated as income chargeable to tax which has escaped the assessment within the meaning of provision of section 147 of the IT Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2016-17. In compliance to the said

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

purchase and sales, and it is after examining the case thoroughly that assessment was completed on returned income. (B) Proceeding under section 148A/148 In this case the learned AO issued notice under section 148 after issuing notice under section 148A(b) and passing order under section 148 A(d). Notice under section 148 has been issued on 29.03.2022. Copies

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

d)\nand issued a notice under section 148 - Assessee contended that reassessment\nshould be done in a faceless manner, rather than being assessed by jurisdictional\nofficer as was provided under section 144B and in accordance with scheme\nenacted by Central Government under section 151A – Whether after introduction\nof 'Faceless Jurisdiction of Income-tax Authorities Scheme, 2022' and 'e-\nAssessment

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

bogus\nentities-Tribunal allowed assessee's appeal on merits—Revenue appealed against appellate\norder on merits—Assessee's cross appeal was on correctness of reopening of assessment—\nTribunal upheld assessee's cross-objections and dismissed Revenue's appeal holding that there\nwas no proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority u/s Section 151 as a pre-\ncondition for issuing

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

1) dated 21/03/2022 (correct date is 21/02/2022) (PB Page 96-105), wherein detail of transaction executed by assessee company through broker M/s SMC Global Securities Limited were provided. 8. Sir, one fails to understand that how detail of transaction which in fact executed by assessee can held as supporting evidence for allegation without any material based on which

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy

ACIT, NCR BUILDING, JAIPUR vs. HANS RAJ AGARWAL, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR JAIPUR

39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

148A(d) of the Act issued on 27.7.2022. Conclusion 30. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the notice under section 148 of the Act is invalid in the eye of law. 26 ITA No. 1253/JPR/2024 & CO No. 1/JPR/2025 Hans Raj Agarwal Result 31. As a result of the above findings, the reassessment order dated 17.5.2023 deserves

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

148A(d) of I.T. Act. Afterwards the assessee submitted detailed\nexplanation and evidence in support of its claim, but the ld. AO observed\nthat heavy payments have been received from M/s Mamta Trading\nCompany and its proprietor Shri Suresh Kumar has not filed the return of\nincome and accordingly these credits are unexplained and thereby added\nthe same

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

purchase of mutual funds. Since, the assessee failed to explain the source of investment, the source of investment of Rs. 7,50,000/- remained unexplained and thus added to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Thus the ld. AO made the entire cash deposit without seeing the withdrawals

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

purchase of mutual funds. Since, the assessee failed to explain the source of investment, the source of investment of Rs. 7,50,000/- remained unexplained and thus added to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Thus the ld. AO made the entire cash deposit without seeing the withdrawals

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

148A of Act was issued by JAO. 6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: 13 Durga Prasad Sharma vs. ITO S. No. Particulars/Short description P. B. Page 1 Written synopsis in support of grounds of appeal A to D 2 Purchase from Siddhi Vinayak – proof & supporting documents

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)

148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 failed to provide necessary supporting documents to establish that the transaction between the appellant and M/s Dineshchandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt Ltd are genuine. Therefore the subcontract receipts from DRAIPL remained unexplained. Hence, after complying the detailed procedure in the order of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Union

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)

148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 failed to provide necessary supporting documents to establish that the transaction between the appellant and M/s Dineshchandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt Ltd are genuine. Therefore the subcontract receipts from DRAIPL remained unexplained. Hence, after complying the detailed procedure in the order of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Union

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. HEM CHAND JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

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

148A(d) at 23.07.2022 was passed on the ground that (refer para 3 of assessment order) as per information received from DDIT(Inv.), Delhi, Gini Silk Mills Ltd., a listed company, the entire shareholding was brought by the syndicate to provideaccommodation entries to the beneficiaries with the help of brokers and entry operators. Assessee is one of the beneficiary

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

PANKAJ KUMAR MITTAL,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, stands allowed

d) the Assessing Officer has received any information under the scheme\nnotified under section 135A pertaining to income chargeable to tax\nescaping assessment for any assessment year in the case of the assessee.]\nExplanation. For the purposes of this section, specified authority means\nthe specified authority referred to in section 151.]\nThat the Learned Assessing Officer issued Notice under clause

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

148A(d), there is no discussion of sum of Rs.4,68,75,013/- and assessee is alleged 25 SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL VS DCIT,CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR to have taken fictitious profit of Rs.5,12,17,312/- and has concluded that such amount is liable to be added u/s 68/69. Thereafter, in the show cause notice (APB 138) at para

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

d) observed that the fictitious loss is used for erosion of asset and the amount is more than 50 lakhs. The fictitious loss generated through the sale in shares/derivative is covered in the definition of asset. Hence the relevant contention is not tenable.” However, ld.CIT(A) rejected the plea of assessee by holding that provisions of section 149 were amended

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

148A(d) deserved to be set aside - Held, yes [Paras 14, 16 and 17] [In\nfavour of assessee]\n\nThe Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur bench in the identical case in ITA No. 425/JP/2017 in the\ncase of Sh. Navrattan Kothari Vs. ACIT, Jaipur vide order dt. 13.12.2017 has held as\nunder:-\n\n“....Therefore, in conjoint reading of provisions