DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the Revenue as well as CO's of\nthe assessee are dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 03/10/2024

house property, considering the fact of higher valuation then the amount\nclaimed to have been spent. There is no reference neither in the assessment\norder nor in the remand report to any documents or other incriminating material\nfound during search like emails exchanged or whatsapp messages or\nunaccounted bills or cash payment documents etc. showing unaccounted\npayments or investment

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

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, 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, 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, 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

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment." 38. The present appeals concern AYs, 2002-03, 2005-06 and 2006-07.0n the date of the search the said assessments already stood completed. Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property, business and other sources. A search and seizure action\nu/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was carried

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BITTHAL DAS PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.01.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 14,85,740/- and claimed an exempt income of Rs. 2,83,12,308/- under section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 being Long Term Capital Gain from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.01.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 14,85,740/- and claimed an exempt income of Rs. 2,83,12,308/- under section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 being Long Term Capital Gain from

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. JYOTI FALOR, JAIPUR

house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.01.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 14,85,740/- and claimed an exempt income of Rs. 2,83,12,308/- under section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 being Long Term Capital Gain from

DCIT, C.C. -03, JAIPUR vs. SHRI TEJENDER KUMAR FALOR, JAIPUR

house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.01.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 14,85,740/- and claimed an exempt income of Rs. 2,83,12,308/- under section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 being Long Term Capital Gain from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SAROJ PARWAL, JAIPUR

house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.01.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 14,85,740/- and claimed an exempt income of Rs. 2,83,12,308/- under section 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961 being Long Term Capital Gain from

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

properties. During search in case of Sh. Rajesh Kabra, a Fortunner Car with Reg. No.RJ14UF3456 was found standing at his house. In this regard he stated that the said car belongs to Sh Om Agarwal firm Om Real Developers. He was also having the key. On this he gave an unrealistic reply that the same was brought here for parking