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

MILESTONE DEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 142(2A) of the Act has been amended w.e.f.01.10.2014, which is as under:- Estimation of value of assets by Valuation Officer. 142A. (1) The Assessing Officer may, for the purposes of assessment or reassessment

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

1) of section 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

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

1) of section 142A and ending with the date on\nwhich 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

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)

reassessment proceedings under sec. 147 of Act. 2. Without prejudice to ground No. (1) above, ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining disallowance of payments on account of (1) Rs.17,450/- paid extra for enhanced DLC value of registration charges, (2) capital expenses of Rs.15,71,149 (4,06,963/-+Rs.11,64,186/-) incurred for vacating sold land from

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

1) of section 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

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

1) of section 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

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

1) of section 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

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

1) of section 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

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

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

1) Rs.2,03,500/- (2) Rs.4,53,000/- (3) Rs.51,038/- (4) Rs.1,11,420/- Rs.8,18,958 During the course of assessment proceedings, it was submitted that the assessee, while filing the return of income for AY 2020-21, has taken into consideration the above papers of undisclosed sales. It is on account of such papers and other discrepancies