ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this subsection pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate." What is clear from this is that Section 153A is in the nature

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this subsection pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate.\" What is clear from this is that Section 153A is in the nature

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any\n assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this\nsubsection pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or\nmaking of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate.\" What\nis clear from this is that Section 153A

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment cannot be declared invalid in the penalty proceedings’’. View taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the above judgment was indirectly affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, when it dismissed an SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra), specifically observing that there was no merits

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

120/- by making an addition of Rs. 2,64,66,445/- on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and same has to be taxed in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration. There is no dispute that the Assessing Officer proposed to reassess the income on account of transaction of purchase of land

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)

1) is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been service'. However, the said decision does state that jurisdiction becomes vested in the Assessing Officer to proceed with the assessment once notice is issued within a period of limita-tion. It also emphasized that no reassessment shall be made 'until there has been service'. The legal position therefore

ARUN BHARDWAJ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

120 read with Section 124 of the Act and the notification issued by the Board. 20. Thus, in our opinion, the appeal has to succeed on ground nos. 1 and 2 alone. The appeal accordingly stands allowed as aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/01/2024.” In the matter of Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India

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

1) is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been\nservice'. However, the said decision does state that jurisdiction becomes vested\nin the Assessing Officer to proceed with the assessment once notice is issued\nwithin a period of limita-tion. It also emphasized that no reassessment shall be\nmade 'until there has been service'. The legal position therefore

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

reassessment cannot be declared invalid in the penalty proceedings’’. 25 ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023 & CO No. 04/JP/2023 DCIT, Ajmer vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma View taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the above judgment was indirectly affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, when it dismissed an SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment in the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1,30,00,385/-which is chargeable to tax has escaped from assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 150(1) requires that the appellate or revisional authority explicitly directs reassessment of a particular income or issue. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Nath v. CIT [(1979) 120

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 150(1) requires that the appellate or revisional authority explicitly directs reassessment of a particular income or issue. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Nath v. CIT [(1979) 120

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1), (2) and (5) of Section 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), the CBDT hereby directs that the Income Tax Authorities of the National e-Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as "the NeAC") specified in column (2) of the Schedule below, having its headquarters at the place mentioned

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1), (2) and (5) of Section 120 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), the CBDT hereby directs that the Income Tax Authorities of the National e-Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as "the NeAC") specified in column (2) of the Schedule below, having its headquarters at the place mentioned

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Section 150(1) requires that the\nappellate or revisional authority explicitly directs reassessment of a particular\nincome or issue. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Nath v.\nCIT [(1979) 120

SHAILESH GOYAL,TONK vs. ACIT, CENTRE CIRCLE JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

120, authorise the said officer to take action under any of the clauses\naforesaid in respect of such building, place, vessel, vehicle or aircraft.\n\nExplanation. -For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the reason to suspect, as\nrecorded by the income-tax authority under this sub-section, shall not be disclosed to any person

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

1,26,87,868/- by invoking the provisions of Section 43 CA of\nthe IT Act, 1961 and the Id CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition,\nignoring the facts that the date of agreement for sale of the immovable\nproperty is 10/09/2008, which is much prior to the Assessment Year 2014-15,\nwhen the provisions of Sec. 43CA

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Section 150(1) requires that the\nappellate or revisional authority explicitly directs reassessment of a particular\nincome or issue. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajinder Nath v.\nCIT [(1979) 120

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

120 r/w s. 147 and thus, the provisions of s. 292B are not applicable.” 1.3We rely upon further judgments of Honble ITAT Jaipur Bench Jaipur in the case of Sh. Subhash Chand Ajmera v/s ITO Ward 1(4), Jaipur, in ITA No.61/Jp/2017 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. dt.30.01.2020 wherein the honble ITAT has quashed the assessment on the jurisdiction under