S.K. THERMOFORMERS,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

reassessment, is of the opinion that sections 69, 69A and 69B of the Act can be invoked; in order to estimate such unexplained investment or expenditure in acquisition of bullion, jewellery or valuable article, he can resort to valuation by the Valuation Officer in terms of sub-section (1) of section 142A

ANJU MEEL,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 3(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

142A(7) rws section 153 (First provision Explanation 1(iv) of the prevailing provisions). In view of the above, the contention raised by the appellant is found to be acceptable and thus the action of the adopting the sale consideration as per market value is not correct. Therefore, the addition made by the AO to this extent is deleted

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

142A and ending with the date on which the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing Officer” Hence, the contention of the Assessing Officer that the assessment proceedings will become time barred due to reference being made to Valuation Officer was not valid in law. 31. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

142A and ending with the date on which the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing Officer" Hence, the contention of the Assessing Officer that the assessment proceedings will become time barred due to reference being made to Valuation Officer was not valid in law. 31. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

142A and ending with the date on which the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing Officer” Hence, the contention of the Assessing Officer that the assessment proceedings will become time barred due to reference being made to Valuation Officer was not valid in law. 31. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

142A and ending with the date on\nwhich the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing Officer”\nHence, the contention of the Assessing Officer that the assessment proceedings will\nbecome time barred due to reference being made to Valuation Officer was not valid in\nlaw.\n31. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

142A and ending with the date on\nwhich the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing Officer\"\nHence, the contention of the Assessing Officer that the assessment proceedings will\nbecome time barred due to reference being made to Valuation Officer was not valid in\nlaw.\n31. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

142A and ending\nwith the date on which the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing\nOfficer”\n\nHence, the contention of the Assessing Officer that the assessment proceedings will\nbecome time barred due to reference being made to Valuation Officer was not valid in\nlaw.\n\n31. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders

M/S. BANSIWALA IRON & STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1388/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke M/S Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, D.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, Somani Building, S.C. Link Vs. Circle-3, Road, Loha Mandi, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadfb 2375 A Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri Dewang Gargieya (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

reassessment notice was issued and the recorded reasons stated that sum of Rs. 73,219 had "escaped income" for the said assessment year. Thereafter, notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) were issued. The petitioners filed the written objections to the recorded reasons. After the objections were filed the matter was considered and order was passed

GANPATI PLAZA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BEHROR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

142A of the Act. The DVO estimated the cost of investment at Rs. 52,336/- for the assessment year 2011-12 and accordingly, the AO made an addition of the differential amount of Rs. 34,11,239/-. On appeal the assessee produced the books of accounts and other records in support of the cost of investment for construction

ITO, BARAN vs. GANPATI PLAZA, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

142A of the Act. The DVO estimated the cost of investment at Rs. 52,336/- for the assessment year 2011-12 and accordingly, the AO made an addition of the differential amount of Rs. 34,11,239/-. On appeal the assessee produced the books of accounts and other records in support of the cost of investment for construction

GANPATI PLAZA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BEHROR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

142A of the Act. The DVO estimated the cost of investment at Rs. 52,336/- for the assessment year 2011-12 and accordingly, the AO made an addition of the differential amount of Rs. 34,11,239/-. On appeal the assessee produced the books of accounts and other records in support of the cost of investment for construction

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

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

reassessment or recomputation is made under\nsub-section (3) of section 143 or section 144 or section 147 orsection 153A or clause (c)\nof section 158BC unless the reasons for retaining the same are recorded by him in writing and\nthe approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner\nor Commissioner, Principal Director General or Director General

TRIPUTI COTTAGE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

reassessment completed by the Assessing Officer U/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cost of construction/investment on the basis of valuation determined by the DVO estimating the cost of construction of hotel building. 5. The assessee challenged the addition made

ITO, BEHROR vs. TRIPUTI COTTAGE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

reassessment completed by the Assessing Officer U/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cost of construction/investment on the basis of valuation determined by the DVO estimating the cost of construction of hotel building. 5. The assessee challenged the addition made

495 TRIPUTI COTTAGE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BEHROR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

reassessment completed by the Assessing Officer U/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cost of construction/investment on the basis of valuation determined by the DVO estimating the cost of construction of hotel building. 5. The assessee challenged the addition made

TRIPUTI COTTAGE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BEHROR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

reassessment completed by the Assessing Officer U/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cost of construction/investment on the basis of valuation determined by the DVO estimating the cost of construction of hotel building. 5. The assessee challenged the addition made

TRIPUTI COTTAGE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

reassessment completed by the Assessing Officer U/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cost of construction/investment on the basis of valuation determined by the DVO estimating the cost of construction of hotel building. 5. The assessee challenged the addition made