DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

seizure”. Both these provisions, therefore,\nhave to be read together. Section 153A is indeed an extremely potent power\nwhich enables the Revenue to reopen at least six years of preceding assessment\nyear of search. It is not to be exercised lightly. It is only if during the course of\nsearch under section 132, incriminating material justifying the reopening

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

seizure”. Both these provisions, therefore,\nhave to be read together. Section 153A is indeed an extremely potent power\nwhich enables the Revenue to reopen at least six years of preceding assessment\nyear of search. It is not to be exercised lightly. It is only if during the course of\nsearch under section 132, incriminating material justifying the reopening

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

seizure”. Both these provisions, therefore,\nhave to be read together. Section 153A is indeed an extremely potent power\nwhich enables the Revenue to reopen at least six years of preceding assessment\nyear of search. It is not to be exercised lightly. It is only if during the course of\nsearch under section 132, incriminating material justifying the reopening

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

seizure operation. 15.1 In view of the discussion hereinabove, once during search undisclosed income is found on unearthing the incriminating material during the search, the AO would assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income even in case of completed/unabated assessments. Therefore, the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court taking the view that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

seizure operation. 15.1 In view of the discussion hereinabove, once during search undisclosed income is found on unearthing the incriminating material during the search, the AO would assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income even in case of completed/unabated assessments. Therefore, the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court taking the view that

LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

depreciation and interest as allowed by the ld. CIT(A) is justified. Keeping in view the rate of income applied is not based on any Shri Laxmi Narain Agarwal Vs. ACIT reasonable and proper rate but is only adopted during the search and seizure

LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

depreciation and interest as allowed by the ld. CIT(A) is justified. Keeping in view the rate of income applied is not based on any Shri Laxmi Narain Agarwal Vs. ACIT reasonable and proper rate but is only adopted during the search and seizure

LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

depreciation and interest as allowed by the ld. CIT(A) is justified. Keeping in view the rate of income applied is not based on any Shri Laxmi Narain Agarwal Vs. ACIT reasonable and proper rate but is only adopted during the search and seizure

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

depreciation and interest as allowed by the ld. CIT(A) is justified. Keeping in view the rate of income applied is not based on any Shri Laxmi Narain Agarwal Vs. ACIT reasonable and proper rate but is only adopted during the search and seizure

LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

depreciation and interest as allowed by the ld. CIT(A) is justified. Keeping in view the rate of income applied is not based on any Shri Laxmi Narain Agarwal Vs. ACIT reasonable and proper rate but is only adopted during the search and seizure

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

depreciation and interest as allowed by the ld. CIT(A) is justified. Keeping in view the rate of income applied is not based on any Shri Laxmi Narain Agarwal Vs. ACIT reasonable and proper rate but is only adopted during the search and seizure

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

seizure operation conducted at the premises of Rock Land Group of Cases and the documents related to the assessee found during the course of search were made available to the Assessing Officer of the present assessee. We thus respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Arun Kapur

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

seizure operation.\n\n15.1 In view of the discussion hereinabove, once during search undisclosed\nincome is found on unearthing the incriminating material during the search, the AO\nwould assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income even in case of\ncompleted/unabated assessments. Therefore, the impugned judgment(s) and\norder(s) passed by the High Court taking the view that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

seizure operation.\n15.1 In view of the discussion hereinabove, once during search undisclosed\nincome is found on unearthing the incriminating material during the search, the AO\nwould assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income even in case of\ncompleted/unabated assessments. Therefore, the impugned judgment(s) and\norder(s) passed by the High Court taking the view that

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

seizure operation conducted at the premises of Rock Land Group of Cases and the documents related to the assessee found during the course of search were made available to the Assessing Officer of the present assessee. We thus respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Arun Kapur

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Act was carried out on 5-02-\n2015 in the case of Bundi Silica Group, Kota to which the assessee\nbelongs. It is noted that the AO issued a notice u/s 153 of the Act to the\nassessee on 13-05-2015. In response to the notice, the assessee filed

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Act was carried out on 5-02-\n2015 in the case of Bundi Silica Group, Kota to which the assessee\nbelongs. It is noted that the AO issued a notice u/s 153 of the Act to the\nassessee on 13-05-2015. In response to the notice, the assessee filed

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

seizure operation conducted at the premises of Rock Land Group of Cases and the documents related to the assessee found during the course of search were made available to the Assessing Officer of the present assessee. We thus respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of ACIT vs. Arun Kapur