CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

reassess under section 147 or pass an order 16 Castamet Works Private Limited vs. PCIT enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 28. The correctness of the claim of the Assessee

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

144A of the IT Act itself appears to be an afterthought. Instead of giving attention to the show cause notice and participating in the adjudication, the petitioner appears to have been ill-advised to venture out in filing the above application. 53. Further, the cash was not found under the control and the possession of the said Mr.S.Srinivasan

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , JAIPUR

144A of the IT Act itself appears to be an afterthought. Instead of\ngiving attention to the show cause notice and participating in the adjudication, the\npetitioner appears to have been ill-advised to venture out in filing the above\napplication.\n53. Further, the cash was not found under the control and the possession of the\nsaid Mr.S.Srinivasan

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRALCIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

144A of the IT Act itself appears to be an afterthought. Instead of\ngiving attention to the show cause notice and participating in the adjudication, the\npetitioner appears to have been ill-advised to venture out in filing the above\napplication.\n53. Further, the cash was not found under the control and the possession of the\nsaid Mr.Srinivasan

RAM DEV CHANDELWAL,S/O SHRI HEERA LAL CHANDELWAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - BUNDI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

144A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 may be invoked in suitable cases. Further, to prevent fishing and roving enquiries in these cases, it is desirable that these cases are invariably picked up for Review/Inspection by the administrative authorities. 6. The above directive shall be applicable from the date of its issue and shall apply to the pending ‘Limited Scrutiny

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)

144A; (ii)an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] conferred on, or assigned to, him under the orders or directions issued by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings initiated by AO which was under challenge before this Tribunal. The new legal plea does not require investigation into factual aspects before either accepting or rejecting the contentions. The appellant submits that the additional ground is purely legal in character and goes to the root of the matter; and therefore, the same may be admitted for adjudication

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

144A of the Act wherein the Addl. CIT considered that application filed before the ITSC is rejected and direction from the Delhi High Court that material owned by M/s. R. T. Industries cannot be accepted. Therefore, Id. AO noted that it is solely related to M/s. RT Industries cannot be accepted and made an addition

SMT. UMA MANDAL, 754, LADHON KA MOHALLA, BEHIND MINERVA CINEMA, M.D. ROAD, JAIPUR-302004,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2), JAIPUR, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 466/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Uma Mandal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 754, Lodhon Ka Mohalla, Ward 5(4), Behind Minerva Cinema, M.D. Jaipur. Road, Jaipur-302004. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Apspm 2419 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vishal Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 22/02/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Action Of Ld. A.O. In Assessing The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 2037281.00 Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Earned Only Commission Income At The Rate Of 0.25 Percent & Treating Percent Of The Deposits In Her Bank Account As Her Income. The Additions Of Pursuance Of Same, Are Prayed To Be Deleted 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Action Of Ld. A.O. Of Initiating Penalty Under Section 271A & 271B Ignoring The Fact

144A where he himself admitted this fact c. Statement of husband of the assesse d. Modus operandi in the bank account of the assesse e. Statement of neighbor of the assesse f. Affidavit filed by the assesse where she wrote that she provided only accommodation entry and earned commission income. Further, she declared that she did not give any confirmation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S MAN PRAKASH TALKIES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-02, Jaipur cuke Vs. M/s Man Prakash Talkies Pvt Ltd. Near Yadgar, M. I. Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCM 6231 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. Nos.11 & 12/JP/2018 (Arising out of ITA Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment

Section 45(2) of the IT Act are applicable and the income ought to be taxed as Business Income and not a Capital Gains?” 9. The brief fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee is a private limited company. The assessee company was engaged in the business of exhibiting films in the cinema hall known

DEPUTY COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. M/S. MAN PRAKSH TALKIES PVT. LTD, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-02, Jaipur cuke Vs. M/s Man Prakash Talkies Pvt Ltd. Near Yadgar, M. I. Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCM 6231 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. Nos.11 & 12/JP/2018 (Arising out of ITA Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment

Section 45(2) of the IT Act are applicable and the income ought to be taxed as Business Income and not a Capital Gains?” 9. The brief fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee is a private limited company. The assessee company was engaged in the business of exhibiting films in the cinema hall known