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

127 of PCIT-2, Jaipur vide order dated 13.07.2023. \nThe assessment proceedings were commenced by issuance of notice u/s \n142(1) along with questionnaire on 18.12.2023.\n5.1 In the questionnaire issued by the ld. AO it was contended by the ld. \nAO that Gokul Kripa Group accepts on money (in cash) on sales of its plots \nin all its ongoing

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

127 of PCIT-2, Jaipur vide order dated 13.07.2023. \nThe assessment proceedings were commenced by issuance of notice u/s \n142(1) along with questionnaire on 18.12.2023. \n\n5.1 In the questionnaire issued by the ld. AO it was contended by the ld. \nAO that Gokul Kripa Group accepts on money (in cash) on sales of its plots

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)

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 it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned

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)

127 of the Act DCIT vs. M/s Royal Jewellers circulated vide CIT-I/ITO(Hqrs)/JPR/u/s127/2016-17/2328 dated 01-12- 2016. Notice under section 153A of the Act dated 06-03-2017 was issued and served upon the Assessee on 09-03-2017 requiring it to file a true and correct return of income as prescribed under Rule

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)

127 of the Act DCIT vs. M/s Royal Jewellers circulated vide CIT-I/ITO(Hqrs)/JPR/u/s127/2016-17/2328 dated 01-12- 2016. Notice under section 153A of the Act dated 06-03-2017 was issued and served upon the Assessee on 09-03-2017 requiring it to file a true and correct return of income as prescribed under Rule

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)

127 of the Act DCIT vs. M/s Royal Jewellers circulated vide CIT-I/ITO(Hqrs)/JPR/u/s127/2016-17/2328 dated 01-12- 2016. Notice under section 153A of the Act dated 06-03-2017 was issued and served upon the Assessee on 09-03-2017 requiring it to file a true and correct return of income as prescribed under Rule

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

127, the communication had to\nbe delivered at the address as available with the banking company. No such\nsteps were taken. Service of notice, therefore, was not complete. In absence of\nservice of notice before the last date envisaged under sec. 149 for such purpose,\nthe AO could not have proceeded further with the reassessment proceedings.\nReassessment proceedings as also

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)

127. Power to transfer cases.- (1) The Principal Director-General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

127 com 78, where Hon’ble bench reversed the order of the Tribunal by observing as under: As per the Income-tax Act, income” means “net income”, which is taxable. Income from property should be computed as per sections 22 to 27 of the Act and the income from business have to be computed under sections

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)

Section 127 of the Act shall apply to the assessment made in accordance the said Scheme subject to the following exceptions, modifications and adaptations Clause (2) of the Notification Nos. 60 and 61 of 2020 dated 13-8-2020 enable the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General in charge of National e-Assessment Centre, at any stage

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)

Section 127 of the Act shall apply to the assessment made in accordance the said Scheme subject to the following exceptions, modifications and adaptations Clause (2) of the Notification Nos. 60 and 61 of 2020 dated 13-8-2020 enable the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General in charge of National e-Assessment Centre, at any stage

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

127 for change of jurisdiction by way of a determination by a superior\nofficer, which has not been done—Reassessment proceedings were not\ntherefore valid.\"\nD. Saroj Sangwan vs. ITO (2024) 162 Taxmann.com 704 (ITAT, Delhi) (DC 18-\n22)\n1.4.1 Further, reliance placed on S.124(3)(b) is completely misplaced in as much as the\nsaid provision presupposes a valid

SUNIL KUMAR GATTANI,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 7

reassessment is passed\npursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of section 153D and\nthat such approval is not meant to be given mechanically and while elaborate\nreasons need not be given, but there has to be some indication that approving\nauthority has examined draft orders and finds that it meets requirement of law\nHigh Court further held

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, [Here in after referred as “Act” ] by the AO. 2 Lovely promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's order dated 26-03-2022 passed

VINITA BAJORIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

section 147, and • The reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 be kindly held to be without jurisdiction, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: S. No. Particulars Page Nos. 1. Synopsis of the Case 1 to 3 2

RAJESH CHOUDHARY,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

127 of the Act vide order dated 0-7-01- 2021. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) dated 29-01-2021 along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee. The notices were sent to the assessee from time to time and the documents reply were furnished by the ld. AR of the assessee. It is noticed that the assessee is running

DCIT, AJMER vs. M/S V.C. GRANITE, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment shall be the period as referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of this sub-section or nine months from the end of the financial year in which books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned are handed over under section 153C to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, whichever is later

V C GRANITES,AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment shall be the period as referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of this sub-section or nine months from the end of the financial year in which books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned are handed over under section 153C to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, whichever is later