DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

bogus purchases can be added to arrive at the net income of the appellant. The appellant is a trader and not a manufacturer of the oil in which the appellant is dealing. The books of accounts of the appellant have been rejected in the assessment order. During the survey proceedings the appellant has already offered an additional income of Rs.1

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

purchases were bogus has no legs to stand on. The finding of the CIT(A) and ITAT that the said liability which was converted into an unsecured loan and subsequently stood repaid has not been challenged by the Revenue in the present appeal. Further, the reliance placed by the ITATon the judgment of this Court in Shri Vardhman Overseas (supra

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)

546 (Bombay) Held: For a notice to be validly issued for reassessment under section 148, jurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice, same is to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer as is required by provisions of section 151A Pooja Vaibhav Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 165 taxmann.com 725 (Bombay) Held : Where re-assessment

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

546\n(Bombay)\nHeld: For a notice to be validly issued for reassessment under section 148,\njurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice,\nsame is to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer as is required by provisions\nof section 151A.\nPoojaVaibhav Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 165\ntaxmann.com 725 (Bombay)\nHeld: Where re-assessment

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

546\n(Bombay)\nHeld: For a notice to be validly issued for reassessment under section 148,\njurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice,\nsame is to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer as is required by provisions\nof section 151A.\nPoojaVaibhav Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 165\ntaxmann.com 725 (Bombay)\nHeld: Where re-assessment

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

546\n(Bombay)\nHeld: For a notice to be validly issued for reassessment under section 148,\njurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice,\nsame is to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer as is required by provisions\nof section 151A.\nPoojaVaibhav Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 165\ntaxmann.com 725 (Bombay)\nHeld: Where re-assessment

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

546\n(Bombay)\nHeld: For a notice to be validly issued for reassessment under section 148,\njurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice,\nsame is to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer as is required by provisions\nof section 151A.\nPoojaVaibhav Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 165\ntaxmann.com 725 (Bombay)\nHeld: Where re-assessment

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

546\n(Bombay)\nHeld: For a notice to be validly issued for reassessment under section 148,\njurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice,\nsame is to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer as is required by provisions\nof section 151A.\nPoojaVaibhav Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 165\ntaxmann.com 725 (Bombay)\nHeld: Where re-assessment

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

546,780.00\n4\nJuly-15\n17,400,195.00\n23,749,500.00\n41,149,695.00\n52,207,340.00\n52,207,340.00\n5\nAug-15\n18,830,792.50\n24,083,750.00\n42,914,542.50\n39,137,070.00\n39,137,070.00\n6\nSept-15\n23,585,302.50\n16,252,500.00\n39,837,802.50\n27,752,550.00\n27,752,550.00\n7\noct

ADITYA BAHETI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

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

546 dated 09.01.2008 and 0036 dated 15.01.2008. The shareswere deposited in DMAT A/c with M/s. Alankit Assignment Ltd., Jaipur and thequantities of 20000 shares werecreditedon 24.01.2008.M/s. Nouvea MultiMedia Ltd. was listed in stock exchange and the shares were purchased at therates prevailing on the date of purchase in BSE.The assessee received 40000RightSharesissuedbythecompanylateron.Wefindthattheassesseehasduly reflected all these shares in the Books

MANOHAR LAL CHUGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO,WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

bogus long term capital gain. There is no dispute that once the assessee has claimed the long term capital gain from purchase and sale of shares which is exempt under section 10(38) of the Act, the primary onus is on the assessee to substantiate his claim by producing the supporting evidence. We find that the assessee is a regular

NARESH KUMAR ARORA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus long term capital gain. There is no dispute that once the assessee has claimed the long term capital gain from purchase and sale of shares which is exempt under section 10(38) of the Act, the primary onus is on the assessee to substantiate his claim by producing the supporting 17 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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)

546 (Bombay) Held: For a notice to be validly issued for reassessment under section 148, jurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice, same is to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer as is required by provisions of section 151A 7. Pooja Vaibhav Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 165 taxmann.com 725 (Bombay) Held : Where

BASANT GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

546 3. Unique Jewellers 15,15,170 3,78,793 4. China Exports 15,54,939 3,88,735 5. Ruchi Impex 16,00,497 4,00,124 6. Amrit Exports 15,55,609 3,88,902 7. Lucky Jewellers HUF 29,00,121 7,25,030 8. N.K. Enterprises 20,64,910 5,16,228 9. Bansal Jewels

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

Bogus sales) - Assessment year 2015-16- Assessee company filed its return of income for relevant year - Case was selected for limited scrutiny on ground of mismatch in sales turnover and suspicious sale transaction in shares - Assessment was completed under section 143(3) - Thereafter, Commissioner issued a show cause notice to 26 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

Bogus sales) - Assessment year 2015-16- Assessee company filed its return of income for relevant year - Case was selected for limited scrutiny on ground of mismatch in sales turnover and suspicious sale transaction in shares - Assessment was completed under section 143(3) - Thereafter, Commissioner issued a show cause notice to 26 M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development

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)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

546, 54GA, therefore, the other issues containing in the incriminating material/seized material are not open for the AO for assessment due to the limited scrutiny. Para 3: Regarding satisfaction note, since the satisfaction note was based on the finding as declared by the assessee on its own in the ITR filed for AY 2012-13. Further, AO only compare