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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

151. Therefore in this present appeal both the notices u/s 148 were not issued with proper approval and hence the whole proceedings including the assessment order are liable to be quashed being illegal. Escapement not represented in the form of asset b. Without prejudice to above submissions it is submitted that requirement as per provisions of section

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)

151-152) 8. 12/11/2018 (PB pg no. 153-154) 13/11/2018 (PB pg no. 155-156) 1. Thus, after considering all the replies and evidences on several occasions the Ld.AO was, please to accept the returned income of the assessee by passing the order u/s143(3) dated 11/12/2018(PB Pg No. 157-163). 2. Thus, Ld.AO by initiating the present reassessment

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

section 147 and 151 and accordingly notice u/s 148 was issued to assessee—Proceedings u/s 147/148 were initiated after recording reasons on basis of information received from Investigation Wing of Department on basis of search and seizure operation—During course of assessment proceedings, assessee was specifically asked to explain and justify transaction with G received as share application money/share capital

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

section 147 and 151 and accordingly notice u/s 148 was issued to assessee—Proceedings u/s 147/148 were initiated after recording reasons on basis of information received from Investigation Wing of Department on basis of search and seizure operation—During course of assessment proceedings, assessee was specifically asked to explain and justify transaction with G received as share application money/share capital

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

151 stipulates that CIT (A), who was\ncompetent authority to authorize reassessment notice, had to apply his mind and\nform opinion—Mere appending of expression ‘approved' says nothing—It was not as if CIT\n(A) had to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with noting put up—At same time, satisfaction had to be recorded\nof given case which could

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Section 263, in relation\nto such claim, stating that interest on delayed payment of TDS is nothing but penal\nin nature, accordingly, should have been disallowed by NFAC. Before us the ld.\nAR of the assessee, relied upon the decision of Coordinate Bench at Delhi in the\ncase of Delhi Cargo Service Center [2023] 151

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)

Section 151 of Income Tax Act 1961. The action of the ld. AO is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing such re-assessment proceedings. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action

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)

151 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the sanction for issue of notice under section 148 is required to be obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax if more than 3 years have been lapsed from the end of the relevant Assessment Year. The period of 3 years in the present case has ended on 31.03.2020. The notice under section

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C of the Act. IN this regard, he placed reliance on the judgement of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT Kolkata, ITA No. 1420/KOL/2015. Once the conditions of Section 194C(6) is satisfied, the liability to deduct the TDS would cease and accordingly, application of section

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section\n143(1), of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nEmployee's contribution (Intimation for\nmaking adjustment) Assessment year\n2018-19 Whether where addition was\nmade to income of assessee, being late\npayment of employees contribution of PF\nand ESI which was disallowed under\nTrib.SMC)\n4\nSentinel Consultants\n(P.) Ltd. VACI\n[2023] 153\ntaxmann.com 151

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

151-163). In the case it was held that where Assessing Officer during course of original assessment verified all transactions of purchase/sales/stock of shares in case of assessee and made disallowance under section

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

151) and determine the total income of the assessee. Such determination in the orders passed under Section 153A would be similar to the orders passed in any reassessment, where the total income determined in the original assessment order and the income that escaped assessment are clubbed together and assessed as the total income. In such a case, to reiterate, there

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may specified

SWAMI KESHWANAND SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,SIKAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 309 & 310/Jp/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Cuke I.T.O. (Exemption), Vs. Sansthan, Ward-2, N.H.11, Bhadhadhar, Sikar-332315 Jaipur (Rajasthan). (Raj) Pan No.: Aafts 2816 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 17/09/2020 & 10/09/2020 For The A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

disallowance of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) as the assessee is eligible for the exemption." . 2. That the assessee reserves the rights to add, amend/alter any of the grounds of appeal during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Registered Society engaged in educational activities at Village

SWAMI KESHWANAND SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,SIKAR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD-2, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 309 & 310/Jp/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Cuke I.T.O. (Exemption), Vs. Sansthan, Ward-2, N.H.11, Bhadhadhar, Sikar-332315 Jaipur (Rajasthan). (Raj) Pan No.: Aafts 2816 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shafi Mohammed (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 17/09/2020 & 10/09/2020 For The A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

disallowance of exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiad) as the assessee is eligible for the exemption." . 2. That the assessee reserves the rights to add, amend/alter any of the grounds of appeal during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Registered Society engaged in educational activities at Village

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallow 15% of total contract receipt of Rs. 19,15,000/-that comes to Rs. 2,87,250/-. Therefore, an addition of Rs. 11 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO 2,87,250/- was made and added to the total income of the assessee. Thus, total income of the assessee was computed as under : Add: Unexplained cash deposit

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

disallowance of the deduction under Section 80P was not justified solely because the return was filed belatedly. Referring to various judicial precedents and circulars, it was noted that the provisions of Section 80AC, as amended from time to time, and the applicability of Section 143(1)(a)(v) did not support the denial of deduction in this case, especially considering

RAJESH MOTORS (CARS) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the above mentioned assessee's are dismissed

151\ntaxmann.com 417 (Mumbai Trib.)(12-04-2023) herein it is held that\nonce there is incorrect claim apparent from the return of income, then\nthe section provides that adjustment has to be made. The auditor in the\naudited accounts only points out the date of payment and the due date\nprescribed under the respective

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)

151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A