DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

Housing Development Co. Vs DCIT [2014] 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) is as under: DCIT vs. M/s Royal Jewellers "Section 1534, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Search and seizure-Assessment in case of search or requisition (Conditions precedent) - Assessment year 2008-09- Whether once proceedings under section 1534 is initiated, pursuant to search, order of assessment

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

Housing Development Co. Vs DCIT [2014] 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) is as under: DCIT vs. M/s Royal Jewellers "Section 1534, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Search and seizure-Assessment in case of search or requisition (Conditions precedent) - Assessment year 2008-09- Whether once proceedings under section 1534 is initiated, pursuant to search, order of assessment

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

Housing Development Co. Vs DCIT [2014] 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) is as under: DCIT vs. M/s Royal Jewellers "Section 1534, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Search and seizure-Assessment in case of search or requisition (Conditions precedent) - Assessment year 2008-09- Whether once proceedings under section 1534 is initiated, pursuant to search, order of assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

property is declared in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. The issuance of notices under section 153A(1) for all the six assessment years does not entail altogether a fresh exercise of making a fresh assessment. Hence, the completed assessment can be interfered with

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

property is declared in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. The issuance of notices under section 153A(1) for all the six assessment years does not entail altogether a fresh exercise of making a fresh assessment. Hence, the completed assessment can be interfered with

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

property is declared in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. The issuance of notices under section 153A(1) for all the six assessment years does not entail altogether a fresh exercise of making a fresh assessment. Hence, the completed assessment can be interfered with

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

property is declared in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. The issuance of notices under section 153A(1) for all the six assessment years does not entail altogether a fresh exercise of making a fresh assessment. Hence, the completed assessment can be interfered with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

property is declared in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. The issuance of notices under section 153A(1) for all the six assessment years does not entail altogether a fresh exercise of making a fresh assessment. Hence, the completed assessment can be interfered with

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

seizure\naction. The undisclosed income is also represented by the valuable article or\nthing in the form of constructed portion of the house. Both, such undisclosed\nincome and such undisclosed asset/house construction, are the undisclosed\nincome of the appellant as per the section 271AAB of the Act.\nReliance is also placed up on the judgment of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT — (2014)(Kar. HC) In this case the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that initiation of proceedings are not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during search. In this case the Hon’ble Court has decided the issue on the same footings as decided by Hon’ble Kerala High Court

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT — (2014)(Kar. HC) In this case the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that initiation of proceedings are not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during search. In this case the Hon’ble Court has decided the issue on the same footings as decided by Hon’ble Kerala High Court

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT — (2014)(Kar. HC) In this case the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that initiation of proceedings are not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during search. In this case the Hon’ble Court has decided the issue on the same footings as decided by Hon’ble Kerala High Court

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT — (2014)(Kar. HC) In this case the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that initiation of proceedings are not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during search. In this case the Hon’ble Court has decided the issue on the same footings as decided by Hon’ble Kerala High Court

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

property is declared in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. The issuance of notices under section 153A(1) for all the six assessment years does not entail altogether a fresh exercise of making a fresh assessment. Hence, the completed assessment can be interfered with

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

property is declared in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment. The issuance of notices under section 153A(1) for all the six assessment years does not entail altogether a fresh exercise of making a fresh assessment. Hence, the completed assessment can be interfered with

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)

search for the purpose beyond the plain meaning of the law. The object of the law is set out in unambiguous term. If every allottee chosen after a process of selection under the Rules with reference to certain objective criteria were to enter into bargains of this nature, it will undoubtedly make the law a hanging (sic laughing) stock

SHRI VIVEK SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

house property, rent, remuneration and interest from partnership firms. There was a search seizure action U/s 132(1) of the Act on 17.12.2014 at 2 Shri

SHRI KAMAL SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

house property, rent, remuneration and interest from partnership firms. There was a search seizure action U/s 132(1) of the Act on 17.12.2014 at 2 Shri