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

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

1. The assessee has invested in residential house property within the stipulated time to claim deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act, 1961. Copy of conveyance deed is enclosed along with Bank Statements where the invested amounts are clearly shown. 2. The assessee has got a joint family consisting of his wife and two major sons and their family. Therefore

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

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

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

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 Benchs-B,\nJaipur order in the case of Shri Raja Ram Maheshwari Vs. DCIT Central Circle-3,\nJaipur in ITA No. 992/JP/2017

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Housing Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 350 ITR 131 (Guj.) In the reasons recorded by Ld. A.O. there is no whisper that “due to failure on the part of assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment” the income has escaped assessment and, therefore the notice issued u/s 148 is wrong

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

149 for such purpose, the AO could not have proceeded further with the reassessment proceedings. Reassessment proceedings as also subsequent recovery of tax are quashed and set aside. Mrs. ShubhashriPanickerVs. CIT (2018) 166 DTR 1 (Raj.) (HC) Notice under sec. 148 having been sent to an address where the assessee was not residing, presumption of service cannot be drawn

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

149 for such purpose, the AO could not have proceeded further with the reassessment proceedings. Reassessment proceedings as also subsequent recovery of tax are quashed and set aside. Mrs. ShubhashriPanickerVs. CIT (2018) 166 DTR 1 (Raj.) (HC) Notice under sec. 148 having been sent to an address where the assessee was not residing, presumption of service cannot be drawn

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, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KAMAL SETHIA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

house property, remuneration and interest from these partnership firms. A search was conducted on the assessee on 17.12.2014 and statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) in which the assessee has voluntarily surrendered a sum of Rs. 9,92,49,633/- for AY 2014-15. It was further submitted that the assessee filed original return of income

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property on account of his half share in a property in Delhi and some interest income. The AO therefore concluded that the Assessee had not fully and truly disclosed all material facts for the AY in question. The AO noted that in a statement dated 24th September 2007, recorded by the ADIT (Inv.), Ludhiana, the Assessee denied knowledge

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. 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

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

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person\nwhere a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other\ndocuments or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st\nday of May, 2003 but on or before the 31st day of March, 2021, the Assessing\nOfficer shall-\n(a) issue notice

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