DIPTI GARG,TONK vs. ITO WD, TONK

145/- out of which assessee's share @ 50% comes to\nRs.42,25,073/-. However, the sale consideration shown by the\nassessee is only Rs. 8 lacs of which assessee's share is Rs. 4 lacs.\nConsidering this fact, Ld. AO invoked the provisions of section\n56(2)(viib) of the Act and the difference between the consideration as\nper

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

reassess the income in respect of any issue which has escaped assessment and which come to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section o) Oriental Bank of Commerce v Ad.CIT [2014] 90 CCH 27 Del HC p) Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memom v ITO Special Civil Application No.21030 of 2017 – Guj HC The Assessing Officer

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)

reassessments contemplated under section 153A. There is also no requirement under section 153A and other provisions requiring the Department to collect information and evidence for each and every year for six previous years under section 153A. Therefore, the argument of assessee that the information gathered either during pre-search enquiry or during the course of search cannot be made

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)

reassessments contemplated under section 153A. There is also no requirement under section 153A and other provisions requiring the Department to collect information and evidence for each and every year for six previous years under section 153A. Therefore, the argument of assessee that the information gathered either during pre-search enquiry or during the course of search cannot be made

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)

reassessments contemplated under section 153A. There is also no requirement under section 153A and other provisions requiring the Department to collect information and evidence for each and every year for six previous years under section 153A. Therefore, the argument of assessee that the information gathered either during pre-search enquiry or during the course of search cannot be made

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

reassessment under Sections 139,147,148,149,151 & 153. " In view of the above discussion, the assessment completed u/s 144 deserves to be quashed. The order of the Learned CIT(A) also deserved to be quashed on this ground. Additional Ground No.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the results all the appeals filed by the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional CIT resulting in vitiating

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 11.45% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.93% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 11.45% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.93% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 11.45% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.93% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 11.45% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.93% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 11.45% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.93% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 11.45% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.93% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 11.45% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.93% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 11.45% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.93% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, based on the discussion so recorded here in above both

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

145(3) of the Act. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in arbitrarily estimating Gross Profit Rate of 11.45% on the declared turnover of the assessee as against the Gross profit Rate of 7.93% declared by the assessee as per the audited books of account and thus

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment into two stages and when viewed in that light allocation. The distribution of functions between the JAO and NFAC is complimentary and concurrent as contemplated under the various schemes and the statutory provisions. This balanced distribution underscores the legislative intent to create a seamless integration of traditional and faceless assessment mechanisms within a unified statutory framework This

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment into two stages and when viewed in that light allocation. The distribution of functions between the JAO and NFAC is complimentary and concurrent as contemplated under the various schemes and the statutory provisions. This balanced distribution underscores the legislative intent to create a seamless integration of traditional and faceless assessment mechanisms within a unified statutory framework This

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

145(3) by rejecting the books. 35. That the learned appellate authority has molded the facts as per his convenience, which is wrong. It is mentioned as reproduced above that learned assessing authority had asked for “bills/Vouchers etc.” through notice u/s 142(1), i.e. they have specifically asked for purchase and sales bills. But it is to be submitted that