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 ITR 14

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 ITR 14

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)

reassess the total income taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, found during the course of search. For this purpose, the restrictions imposed on the Assessing Officer by way of sections 148 to 153 to reopen the assessment u/s 147 has been removed by the non abstante clause used in section 153A. 14

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded as under: i) that in case of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A, the Assessing Officer assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even

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 ITR 14

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)

14. Thus, the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid case has held that in the absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The Hon'ble High Court has also referred the term used in section

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)

14. Thus, the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid case has held that in the absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The Hon'ble High Court has also referred the term used in section

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)

14. Thus, the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid case has held that in the absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The Hon'ble High Court has also referred the term used in section

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings were initiated but nothing was provided except the screen shot. The ld. AO (Faceless Assessment Unit) considered such alleged accommodation entry for Rs. 1.37 Crore as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and taxed the same in terms of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 1ST Appeal The assessment order so passed by assessment unit was appealed

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 ITR 14

LATE SHRI JITENDRA NAGAR THROUGH HIS L/R SMT. DEEPIKA NAGAR,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BARAN, BARAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

14. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue advanced submissions, which we find are intrinsically inconsistent. First, he contended that the second section 148 notice should be considered as non est as it was issued after the notice under Section 153C of the Act was issued. However, he also submitted that the proceedings pursuant to the second section

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

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

14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based on the MCA master data submitted that the company has\nfiled its balance sheet with ROC up to 31/03/2020 & last AGM of company\nwas held on 24/12/2020. The share is also traded on BSE. Based on that\nset of facts

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

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

14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based on the MCA master data submitted that the company has\nfiled its balance sheet with ROC up to 31/03/2020 & last AGM of company\nwas held on 24/12/2020. The share is also traded on BSE. Based on that\nset of facts

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

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

14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based on the MCA master data submitted that the company has\nfiled its balance sheet with ROC up to 31/03/2020 & last AGM of company\nwas held on 24/12/2020. The share is also traded on BSE. Based on that\nset of facts

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based on the MCA master data submitted that the company has\nfiled its balance sheet with ROC up to 31/03/2020 & last AGM of company\nwas held on 24/12/2020. The share is also traded on BSE. Based on that\nset of facts

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

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

14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based on the MCA master data submitted that the company has\nfiled its balance sheet with ROC up to 31/03/2020 & last AGM of company\nwas held on 24/12/2020. The share is also traded on BSE. Based on that\nset of facts

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

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

14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based on the MCA master data submitted that the company has\nfiled its balance sheet with ROC up to 31/03/2020 & last AGM of company\nwas held on 24/12/2020. The share is also traded on BSE. Based on that\nset of facts

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

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

14,780/- under the head LTCG exempt\nunder section 10(38) of the Act. (Annexure A/1)\nHe also based on the MCA master data submitted that the company has\nfiled its balance sheet with ROC up to 31/03/2020 & last AGM of company\nwas held on 24/12/2020. The share is also traded on BSE. Based on that\nset of facts