M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the claim of additional depreciation to the extent of Rs.5,37,17,642/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) who has upheld the validity of reassessment

M/S. RAJDHANI CRAFTS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4 JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassess the income of the assessee by disallowing the claim of exemption U/s 10B of the Act. He has further

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)

reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner: 3 Thus, in view of the above, it is submitted that if no scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3144 of the Act was made earlier

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)

reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner: 3 Thus, in view of the above, it is submitted that if no scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3144 of the Act was made earlier

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)

reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner: 3 Thus, in view of the above, it is submitted that if no scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3144 of the Act was made earlier

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GOYAL,BEAWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, BEAWAR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

reassessment was completed on 26th November, 2018 whereby the AO has disallowed interest of rs. 2,64,318/- being an excess

SMT. NIRMALA GOYAL,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed as per the reassessment proceedings. Further, the AO has taken the net sale consideration as declared by the assessee

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

reassessment proceedings initiated for the Assessment Years 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 it was alleged that assessee is transferring semi-finished goods from the Mahapura Unit (DTA unit) to SEZ unit and that SEZ unit did not make any addition on the goods, ratio of expenses incurred at DTA unit is more than SEZ Unit, etc. That disallowance

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance or addition made in the reassessment proceeding. Since we have allowed the appeal on the technical ground these grounds

VIKAS DUGAR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI KESHARI SINGH DUGAR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassessed the income of the assessee by making the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) as well as u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act without

VIKAS DUGAR L/H OF LATE SHRI KESHARI SINGH DUGAR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassessed the income of the assessee by making the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) as well as u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act without

VIKAS DUGAR L/H OF LATE SHRI KESHARI SINGH DUGAR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”

reassessed the income of the assessee by making the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) as well as u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act without

M/S RAJASTHAN FORT & PALACE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the asessee are allowed

reassessed the income of the assessee by making the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) as well as u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act without

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

reassessed the income of the assessee by making the disallowance u/s 40(A)(3) without making any reference to any incriminating

ACIT, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD., KOTA

reassessment proceedings was void ab initio. 8. The ld AR further submitted that the AO while framing assessment u/s 143(3)/147, disallowed

SOYALA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,TONK vs. ITO, TONK, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassess the income in respect of any issue which has escaped assessment and such issues which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section. The second limb of this proviso i.e. for assessing other issues can only be invoked if first limb is satisfied i.e. when an addition/ disallowance

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

reassessment of the assessee was completed by the AO on 28/12/2018 after disallowing deduction of Rs 94,39,201/- claimed

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and cross

Bench: The Hearing.”

disallowance the expenditure of Rs. 1,28,37,888/- incurred on maintenance of transferred area. The reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s