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)

property, being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. It is submitted that though the definition of assets is inclusive, all the assets included basically are of such nature, which represent an economic resource, either immovable or movable, having value. Thus, genuine losses suffered by assessee (alleged as bogus by ld.AO) cannot

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

property held under (Audit objection)\n Assessment year 2016-17 Assessment of assessee-trust was completed under section\n143(3) at 'Nil' income - Revenue audit party, however, objected to finalization of retum of\nassessee-trust at 'Nil' for reason that during year, assessee received corpus donations\nwhich were not included in income for application under section 11 On basis

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

property during the F.Y 2011-12 to 2013-14. The re-assessment order was passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act by making addition u/s 68 to the tune of Rs 90,00,385 on account of share application/premium received from M/s Agarani Credit and Finvest Pvt. Ltd.,M/s Darshan Enclave Pvt. Ltd., M/s Harsharatna Investment

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Housing Development Co. Vs. DCIT (2015) 114 DTR 162 where the Hon’ble Court at Para 10 of the order held as under:- 10. Sec. 153A of the Act starts with a non-obstante clause . The fetters imposed upon the AO by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under ss. 147 and 148, have been removed

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Housing Development Co. Vs. DCIT (2015) 114 DTR 162 where the Hon’ble Court at Para 10 of the order held as under:- 10. Sec. 153A of the Act starts with a non-obstante clause . The fetters imposed upon the AO by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under ss. 147 and 148, have been removed

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

Housing Development Co. Vs. DCIT (2015) 114 DTR 162 where the Hon’ble Court at Para 10 of the order held as under:- 10. Sec. 153A of the Act starts with a non-obstante clause . The fetters imposed upon the AO by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under ss. 147 and 148, have been removed

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

Housing Development Co. Vs. DCIT (2015) 114 DTR 162 where the Hon’ble Court at Para 10 of the order held as under:- 10. Sec. 153A of the Act starts with a non-obstante clause . The fetters imposed upon the AO by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under ss. 147 and 148, have been removed

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

Housing Development Co. Vs. DCIT (2015) 114 DTR 162 where the Hon’ble Court at Para 10 of the order held as under:- 10. Sec. 153A of the Act starts with a non-obstante clause . The fetters imposed upon the AO by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under ss. 147 and 148, have been removed

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

Housing Development Co. Vs. DCIT (2015) 114 DTR 162 where the Hon’ble Court at Para 10 of the order held as under:- 10. Sec. 153A of the Act starts with a non-obstante clause . The fetters imposed upon the AO by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under ss. 147 and 148, have been removed

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

house property amounting to Rs.l,00,37,910/- and thus shown deduction u/s 54F of Rs.94,39,201/- and LTCG income at Rs. Nil. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act and the returned income was accepted. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened

MUKESH JAIN HUF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reopening, the AO only\nneeds prima facie material to believe that income has escaped assessment, and\na detailed inquiry is required only during the reassessment proceedings. Further,\nin ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC), the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court ruled that the sufficiency of reasons cannot be questioned as long\nas there is tangible material

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property, business capital gains and other sources. Return of income for\nthe year under appeal was filed u/s 139(1) on 31.03.2012 declaring the total income at\nRs.2,29,200/- (APB 1-3). The assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/ 147 of the Act\nat the total income of Rs.1,48,63,860/-, wherein addition of Rs.1

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

assessment and till today no evidence other than allegation has been put on record, based on which a judicious person can laid that there is any force in such allegation. In absence of any discussion about any nature and content of supporting material based on which a judicious person can reach to the conclusion that transaction executed by assessee company

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing Finance Ltd. and remaining amount through bank account.\nThereafter, the AO noted that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.4,28,000/-\nin the bank account on the different dates. The AO asked the source of cash deposit\nin the bank account. In response thereto, the assessee has stated that the same was\nout of his and family

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

House Property under section 24(a) Rs.1,48,031 III. Depreciation under section 32 Rs.1,89,824 3.8. The condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction under section 147 is the formation of a reason to believe by the Assessing Officer. Upon the formation of the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

House, 2nd Crossing, Haldiyon Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur respectively) are related to Shri Prakash Chand Kothari (PCK). As per records and phone directory, the said details pertain to the assessee (i.e. Shri Prakash Chand Kothari of KGK Group). Hence all the above transactions of cash loans pertain to the assessee. 10. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, referred to the statement

SHRI PRAKASH CHAND KOTHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

House, 2nd Crossing, Haldiyon Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur respectively) are related to Shri Prakash Chand Kothari (PCK). As per records and phone directory, the said details pertain to the assessee (i.e. Shri Prakash Chand Kothari of KGK Group). Hence all the above transactions of cash loans pertain to the assessee. 10. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, referred to the statement

YOGESH DAS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

house property' at Rs. 3,27,965/- and Income from other sources' at Rs. 10,40,557/- and it has also computed long term capital loss of Rs. 5,30,681/-on account of sale of two immovable properties (sold on 05.12.2012 and 25.03.2013) during the year under consideration. (ii) On the basis of the reasons as reproduced