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

148A(d). Thus the additions have been made on a ground for which notice under section 148 was not issued. This invalidates the assessment order. It is settled position of law that assessment under section 148 cannot be completed making addition on a ground other than the ground on which notice under section 148 was issued if additions

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

148A(d) that contract receipt/income has been\nproperly declared and the taxes has also been paid. Hence, in substance it\ncan be observed that there is no income which has escaped assessment\nand thus, it is submitted that since there was no independent application of\nmind by Id.AO while recording the satisfaction of escapement of income\nbefore issue of notice

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)

disallowances. 4.9 The appellant submitted all the documents during the scrutiny assessment such as copy of demat account, demat transaction statement, copy of broker note for sale of shares of Yamini Investment, Bank Statement for the year consideration, share certificate of Anax Trade Limited, Copy of Scheme of amalgamation of Anax Trade with Yamini Investment and contract bills of broker

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

disallowing loss incurred by the assessee in transaction on stock exchange. Further, the addition of Rs. 2,19,763/- has been made invoking provisions of section 69C on the presumption that for alleged accommodation entry of loss such expenses ought to be incurred. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the assessing officer, assessee preferred an appeal before

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

148A(d) have been carried by jurisdictional AO and not in a faceless manner as envisaged u/s 151A of the Income tax Act, 1961. Therefore the whole proceedings are liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on Hexaware 18 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO Technologies Ltd. v/s ACIT and others (464 ITR 430) (Mumbai HC) , Kairos Properties

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

disallowance\nunder Chapter-VI-A by taking view that no such deduction claimed in original return of income\nand no evidence to substantiate such deductions were filed—CIT(A) observed that pattern of\nwithdrawal support contention of assessee is that deposit in bank were pertaining to business of\nits scrap-Accordingly, accepted transaction—CIT(A) on basis of pattern

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)

section 69A is not applicable on the alleged facts stated by the ld. AO. 2.1 As we note that the Ground No. 1 to 1.3 raised by the assessee deals that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in reopening the assessment u/s 147 of the Act solely on the basis of information received

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

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) was passed on 23.07.2022 on the ground that (refer para 3 of assessment order) as per information received from DDIT(Inv.), Delhi, in the case of M/s. Ginni Silk Mills Ltd., it was found that M/s. Ginni Silk Mills Ltd. is a listed company, and the entire shareholding was bought by the syndicate to provide accommodation entries

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 148A(d) deserved to be set aside - Held, yes [Paras 12, 15, 16 and 17] [In favour of assessee]" In view of the above, we request you to kindly accept the Appeal & delete the Additions made vide order Dt 30/12/2016 & oblige.” 6. The ld. AR for the assessee also filed prayer for additional evidence which reads as under

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed\ndisallowance under Chapter-VI-A by taking view that no such deduction claimed\nin original return of income and no evidence to substantiate such deductions were\nfiled—CIT(A) observed that pattern of withdrawal support contention of assessee\nis that deposit in bank were pertaining to business of its scrap—Accordingly,\naccepted transaction—CIT(A) on basis of pattern

GCK STOCK PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 06/05/2025

disallowing the loss.”\n6. Conclusion\n6.1 The reopening under Section 148A is valid as it was based on credible SEBI

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(b). Accordingly, the procedure adopted by the Assessing Officer does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appellant also contended that no addition could be made under section. 69C when payments were made through banking channels. This argument is misplaced. Section 69C is not limited to cash payments but covers any unexplained or unsubstantiated expenditure, regardless of mode. Even

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

disallowance under Chapter-VI-A by taking view that no\nsuch deduction claimed in original return of income and no evidence to\nsubstantiate such deductions were filed—CIT(A) observed that pattern\nof withdrawal support contention of assessee is that deposit in bank\nwere pertaining to business of its scrap—Accordingly, accepted\ntransaction—CIT(A) on basis of pattern

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

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)

disallowance of expenses or unrecorded expenses is not covered by the term ‘assets’ as defined explanation to section 149 of the Act as the explanation to section 149 stood as on the date of issue of notice u/s 148 which in the instants case is 21.04.2021. It is submitted that, CBDT through instruction u/s 119 dt. 10.12.2021, with regard

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

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

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

section 5 of the Limitation\nAct 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters\non 'merits'. The expression sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to\nenable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice-that\nbeing the life-purpose