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 should be restricted and strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available?" 3. Without prejudice to the ground no. 1, "on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing assessee's appeal

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 should be restricted and strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available?" 3. Without prejudice to the ground no. 1, "on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing assessee's appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 133A (6) empowered the Income Tax Authority to record the statement on oath, therefore the recording of statement u/s 131 in this case was not ultra-vires. 6 Whether facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is justified in not appreciating the in other important fact that during the assessment proceedings of the assessee

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\norder so passed deserves to be held bad in law.”\n\n2.2 As regards admission of additional ground so taken by assessee is\nconcerned, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that though legal\nground against order passed u/s 147 has been taken requesting it to\nconsider as bad in law, however, for the sake of clarity, additional

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act in case of the assessee. The requirement for making the addition under section 153A in the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act in case of the assessee. The requirement for making the addition under section 153A in the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act in case of the assessee. The requirement for making the addition under section 153A in the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act in case of the assessee. The requirement for making the addition under section 153A in the assessment

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

133A of the Act was carried out on 05/06/2018 and\nduring the course of survey, certain papers were found at the\nbusiness premises of the company which was inventorised by the\nsurvey party as Annexure A-(Exhibit No.02). Shri Raghav Dhoot,\ndirector of the company, was confronted with the papers so found\nand impounded during the course of survey

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

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. UDAI BUILDHOME PVT LTD, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1399, 1400, 1401 & 1486/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Asstt. Commissioner of Income बनाम M/s Udai Buildhome Pvt. Tax, Vs. Ltd. 302, Golden Sunrise Central Circle-02, Jaipur Apartment, Lajpat Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCU 5068 J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee

reassessment under sections 147/148 of the Act has to be saved, otherwise the Revenue would be left without remedy." In the present case the notice u/s 153C of the Act has been issued on 08-08-2019 after the recording of satisfaction. In this regard, when the AO of the searched assesse and other person (appellant) is same in that

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. UDAI BUILDHOME PVT LTD, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1399, 1400, 1401 & 1486/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur बनाम Vs. M/s Udai Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. 302, Golden Sunrise Apartment, Lajpat Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCU 5068 J अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: प्रत्यर्थी / Respond

reassessment under sections 147/148 of the Act has to be saved, otherwise the Revenue would be left without remedy." In the present case the notice u/s 153C of the Act has been issued on 08-08-2019 after the recording of satisfaction. In this regard, when the AO of the searched assesse and other person (appellant) is same in that

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

133A of the Act was carried out against the\nassessee appellant's business premises on 17-18.08.2017 and in\nconsequence, reassessment proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act was initiated for\nthe Assessment Years 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 and scrutiny assessments\nu/s. 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Years 2016-2017 to 2018-2019 were\nalso initiated.\n12\nITA

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

133A of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax \nDepartment on the members of the Gokul Kripa Group on 19-01-2021.\nDuring the search, incriminating documents relating to the assessee were \nfound and seized. It was found that assessee has entered into \nunaccounted financial transaction with M/s Gokul Kripa Group. Necessary \nsatisfaction was drawn by ACIT, Central

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

133A of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax\nDepartment on the members of the Gokul Kripa Group on 19-01-2021.\nDuring the search, incriminating documents relating to the assessee were\nfound and seized. It was found that assessee has entered into\nunaccounted financial transaction with M/s Gokul Kripa Group. Necessary\nsatisfaction was drawn by ACIT, Central

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

133A of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax \nDepartment on the members of the Gokul Kripa Group on 19-01-2021. \n\nDuring the search, incriminating documents relating to the assessee were \nfound and seized. It was found that assessee has entered into \nunaccounted financial transaction with M/s Gokul Kripa Group. Necessary \nsatisfaction was drawn by ACIT

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER vs. VIJAY GRANIMARMO PRIVATE LIMITED, NAYA GHAR GULAB BARI AJMER

reassessment order, as the case may be, is required to\nbe passed by the Assessing Officer with the prior approval of the\nPrincipal Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (12) of\nsection 144BA.\"\nThere is no time limit prescribed in this section for granting approval by\nJoint Commissioner.\nThe appellant had argued that there was no application of mind

PRADEEP KUMAR DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

47. As a result, ITA No

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

133A of the Act was carried out on the members of Chandra Prakash Agarwal Group, of which the assessee is a member. Action was conducted on 28.7.2016. Then, notice under section 153C of the Act was issued on 20.9.2016. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18.10.2018. 10. Further, as per case