RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Natural Justice. " 3. The learned CIT (Appeal) erred in law and on facts in adjudicating the appeal filed against order dated 6th March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Jaipur u/s 144 r.w.t. 147 of Income Tax Act by way of justifying and retaining the Additions made to the tune

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Natural Justice. " 3. The learned CIT (Appeal) erred in law and on facts in adjudicating the appeal filed against order dated 6th March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Jaipur u/s 144 r.w.t. 147 of Income Tax Act by way of justifying and retaining the Additions made to the tune

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

Natural Justice. The assessee was not provided any opportunity before treating the cash sales as not genuine. However the learned CIT Appeal has deleted the entire additions accepting the plea of the asseseee that the sales effected by the assessee were genuine. In the cross objections the plea of the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) should have quashed

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassessment, if any, for such assessment year has been\nmade.\nThese amendments have been brought into effect retrospectively from 1st June,\n2003.\"\n(emphasis supplied)\nAs per the CBDT Gircular also, in case of section 163C of the Act, assessments\nof the preceding six years as pending on the date on which books of account or\ndocuments or assets seized

SHRI HARI RAM YADAV,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income ...”. Thus it is evident that whereas section 148 specifically requires serving a notice on the assessee, section 263 simply talks of giving an opportunity

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

justice and procedures laid down under the act, passed an order in hurry to complete the assessment on 27.12.2019 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the act. 13. That the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 was passed u/s 153C without issuing any notice u/s 153C as mentioned in the order. 14. That the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 was passed without proposing

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

justice and procedures laid down under the act, passed an order in hurry to complete the assessment on 27.12.2019 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the act. 13. That the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 was passed u/s 153C without issuing any notice u/s 153C as mentioned in the order. 14. That the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 was passed without proposing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. JAMMU METALLIC OXIDES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA

natural justice inasmuch as seized material was not provided to the assessee nor was given opportunity of cross examining the person whose statement was being used against the assessee the order could not be sustained. 15. In Andaman Timber Industries (supra) the Supreme Court found that the Adjudicating Authority had not granted an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. JAMMU METALLIC OXIDES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA

natural justice inasmuch as seized material was not provided to the assessee nor was given opportunity of cross examining the person whose statement was being used against the assessee the order could not be sustained. 15. In Andaman Timber Industries (supra) the Supreme Court found that the Adjudicating Authority had not granted an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine

M/S. JAMMU METALLIC OXIDES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

natural justice inasmuch as seized material was not provided to the assessee nor was given opportunity of cross examining the person whose statement was being used against the assessee the order could not be sustained. 15. In Andaman Timber Industries (supra) the Supreme Court found that the Adjudicating Authority had not granted an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. TIRUPATI BALAJI ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED., KOTA

natural justice inasmuch as seized material was not provided to the assessee nor was given opportunity of cross examining the person whose statement was being used against the assessee the order could not be sustained. 15. In Andaman Timber Industries (supra) the Supreme Court found that the Adjudicating Authority had not granted an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine

M/S. TIRUPATI BALAJI ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

natural justice inasmuch as seized material was not provided to the assessee nor was given opportunity of cross examining the person whose statement was being used against the assessee the order could not be sustained. 15. In Andaman Timber Industries (supra) the Supreme Court found that the Adjudicating Authority had not granted an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. TIRUPATI BALAJI ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED., KOTA

natural justice inasmuch as seized material was not provided to the assessee nor was given opportunity of cross examining the person whose statement was being used against the assessee the order could not be sustained. 15. In Andaman Timber Industries (supra) the Supreme Court found that the Adjudicating Authority had not granted an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine

M/S. EDILA BUSINESS WORLD PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

natural justice inasmuch as seized material was not provided to the assessee nor ITA Nos. 1050, 1051 & 1105/JP/2018 36 M/s Edila Business World Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT was given opportunity of cross examining the person whose statement was being used against the assessee the order could not be sustained. 15. In Andaman Timber Industries (supra) the Supreme Court found that

M/S. EDILA BUSINESS WORLD PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

natural justice inasmuch as seized material was not provided to the assessee nor ITA Nos. 1050, 1051 & 1105/JP/2018 36 M/s Edila Business World Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT was given opportunity of cross examining the person whose statement was being used against the assessee the order could not be sustained. 15. In Andaman Timber Industries (supra) the Supreme Court found that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. EDILA BUSINESS WORLD PVT. LTD., KOTA

natural justice inasmuch as seized material was not provided to the assessee nor ITA Nos. 1050, 1051 & 1105/JP/2018 36 M/s Edila Business World Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT was given opportunity of cross examining the person whose statement was being used against the assessee the order could not be sustained. 15. In Andaman Timber Industries (supra) the Supreme Court found that

KAILASH CHAND YADAV,100, KALU BABA KI DHANI, SHEOSHINGHPUR, AKODA, PHULERA-303338 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - 1(2), JAIPUR

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

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

reassessment proceedings were unwarranted and notice issued under s. 148 was liable to be quashed. 17 Kailash Chand Yadav vs. ITO (viii) CIT V/s Shree Rajasthan syntax Ltd. (2008) 217 CTR 209 (Raj) S.L.P. Of The Department Dismissed S.L.P. (c) No 8167 Of 2009 Decision All 30/3/09 Reopening of assessment on borrowed satisfaction by Assessing Officer of lesser

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

justice, kindly be quashed.\n5.1. Rs. 69,90,000/- The Id. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in\nconsidering the entire sale consideration as the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG)\nin complete disregard to the other specific binding provisions of law contained u/s\n45 r.w.s. 48 of the Act. The addition