SAVITA GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO, DELHI

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

property and stamp duty is collected only on the guideline value. Hence, there 7 Savita Gupta vs. ITO is suppression in sales by the seller also as the amount received in cash would be treated as unaccounted sales. In view of the factual position, the source of investment is treated as unexplained in the hands of the appellant

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference\nto the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending with the date on\nwhich the report

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a\nreference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending\nwith the date on which the report

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to\nthe Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending with the date on\nwhich the report

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a\nreference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending\nwith the date on which the report

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a\nreference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending\nwith the date on which the report

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

153B (1) \nof the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n(iv) In case the search and seizure action takes place in last week of March 2021 \nand the seized material is transferred by the AO of the search the assessee to the \nAO of the other assessee in the month of April 2021 apparently in the case of the \nother person

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

house of Shri Rajendran,\nare now unavailable and the learned counsel for the Revenue has no answer for\nthe same. On these premise, the assessment order made for the Assessment years\n2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 requires to be quashed.\n23. 3. That reliance by the Assessing Officer / DRP in their respective orders upon\ncertain whatsapp

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA , KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

section 56(2)(X) of the Act on account difference between DLC rate 7.1 At the time of passing of assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153B(1)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 the AO has briefly stated relevant facts and some of excerpts are reproduced as under:- ‘’17 Difference in DLC rate and Purchase price: During

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

section 56(2)(X) of the Act on account difference between DLC rate 7.1 At the time of passing of assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153B(1)(b) of the Income tax Act, 1961 the AO has briefly stated relevant facts and some of excerpts are reproduced as under:- ‘’17 Difference in DLC rate and Purchase price: During

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

section\n11 (2) and 11(1)(a) of the\nAct\n33,50,772/-\n33,50,772/-\n\n5.\nUnverifiable Creditors\n16,75,286/-\n16,75,286/-\n\n6.\n15% of Construction\nExpenses\n1,20,00,440/-\n1,20,00,440/-\n\n7.\nDisallowance of Rs\n3,69,567 out of total\nexpenses

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

section\n11 (2) and 11(1)(a) of the\nAct\n33,50,772/-\n33,50,772/-\n5.\nUnverifiable Creditors\n16,75,286/-\n16,75,286/-\n6.\n15% of Construction\nExpenses\n1,20,00,440/-\n1,20,00,440/-\n7.\nDisallowance of Rs\n3,69,567 out of total\nexpenses

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

house property and other sources etc. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 5-07- 2018 which was duly served. In response to notice issued u/s 153A, the assessee furnished his return of income on 20-11-2018 declaring total income of Rs.23,67,710/-.It is also noted that earlier the assessee

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

house property and other sources etc. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 5-07- 2018 which was duly served. In response to notice issued u/s 153A, the assessee furnished his return of income on 20-11-2018 declaring total income of Rs.23,67,710/-.It is also noted that earlier the assessee

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)

153B r.w.s 153C of the Act. Considering that the date of receipt of the seized record and information was 02.12.2019, the impugned assessment should have been passed on or before 31.03.2020. As against this, the same was passed on 30.03.2023 and thus, being a nullity, deserves to be quashed. 3. The Id. CITA erred in not deciding that the impugned

VIRENDRA PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Housing (P.) Ltd., ITA No. 246/Hyd/2011, certain entries\nwere found in Pen-Drive on the basis of which additions were made. Hon'ble ITAT,\nHyderabad Bench held that unsubstantiated material found in the Pen-Drive\ncannot be considered, in the hands of the assessee, as conclusive evidence, so as\nto make addition towards unexplained credit. While so holding, it referred

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

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

153B(1)(b) of the Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] by ACIT, Central Circle, Kota [ for short AO ]. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals in ITA Nos. 931 to 934/JP/2024 for A.Ys 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2016-17 are inter related, identical on facts and are almost common, except

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)

153B(1)(b) of the Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] by ACIT, Central Circle, Kota [ for short AO ]. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals in ITA Nos. 931 to 934/JP/2024 for A.Ys 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2016-17 are inter related, identical on facts and are almost common, except