ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

132A of the Act. Hence the concept of deemed date of search is \nnot applicable to sub section (3). Thus, this subsection further adds to the above \ndiscussed amendment of 2017 regarding the crucial date of search for the \npurposes of applicability of section 153C of the Act. In case the deeming date of \nsearch is treated as the date

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

property being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank account. (2) If any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating

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)

property has been found as a consequence of the search, the same would also be taken into consideration. The requirement of assessment or reassessment under the said section has to be read in the context of Sections 132 or 132A of the Act, inasmuch as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then

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)

property has been found as a consequence of the search, the same would also be taken into consideration. The requirement of assessment or reassessment under the said section has to be read in the context of Sections 132 or 132A of the Act, inasmuch as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then

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)

property has been found as a consequence of the search, the same would also be taken into consideration. The requirement of assessment or reassessment under the said section has to be read in the context of Sections 132 or 132A of the Act, inasmuch as, in case nothing incriminating is found on account of such search or requisition, then

SAURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be reopened by the AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act. If the interpretation as made by the Ld. CIT(A) is accepted then the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court that

SOURABH AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be reopened by the AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act. If the interpretation as made by the Ld. CIT(A) is accepted then the direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court that

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

132A of the Act, it is apparent that: (a) the assessments or reassessments, which stand abated in terms of II proviso to Section .153A of the Act, the AO acts under his original jurisdiction, for which, assessments have to he made; (b) regarding other cases, the addition to the income that has already been assessed, the assessment will be made

BABU LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

properties from the Income Tax Department:- 1. Shri Bheru Ram 2. Shri Khema Ram Choudhary 3. Shri Ram Prakash Sharma 4. M/s. Harshita Construction 5. Shri Lal Chand Sharma A copy of his current bank account along with confirmation letters/affidavits of the above said persons who are agriculturists and the amount was received by them from the Government of India

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Housing Development Co. Vs DCIT [2014] 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka) is as under: "Section 153A, 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 153A is initiated, pursuant to search, order of assessment in respect of six years

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

132A of the Act, 1961. However, the\ncompleted/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in\nexercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to\nfulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections\n147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved.\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT v. U.K. Paints (Overseas)\nLtd

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

132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. It is further noted that no incriminating material was found during search operations in respect

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

property documents regarding purchase of properties were seized, as specifically noted by the AO himself in the satisfaction note recorded u/s 153C of the Act. There apart, at various places including the finding recorded in the assessment order for AY 2012-13, the fact of seizure of possession letter is mentioned. The Respondent AO simply mentioned that what was shared

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

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that

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

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that

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

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that

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

Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not attained finality. Thus the ld. D/R has submitted that