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)

173 (kerala) 6 Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 49-58 Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore [2014] 52 taxman.com 98 (Karnataka) 7 Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Kanpur vs. Raj Kumar Arora [2014] 52 59-57 taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad) 8 A. Kishore Kumar v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-IV 68-73 (1), Chennai

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

1) would be redundant which cannot be the intention of the legislature. Therefore, the ld. D/R has submitted that the provisions of section 153A do not require any incriminating material for assessment or reassessment of income. Similarly, when no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3)/144 of the Act was made then the AO is duty bound to assess

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

1) would be redundant which cannot be the intention of the legislature. Therefore, the ld. D/R has submitted that the provisions of section 153A do not require any incriminating material for assessment or reassessment of income. Similarly, when no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3)/144 of the Act was made then the AO is duty bound to assess

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

1) would be redundant which cannot be the intention of the legislature. Therefore, the ld. D/R has submitted that the provisions of section 153A do not require any incriminating material for assessment or reassessment of income. Similarly, when no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3)/144 of the Act was made then the AO is duty bound to assess

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

1) would be redundant which cannot be the intention of the legislature. Therefore, the ld. D/R has submitted that the provisions of section 153A do not require any incriminating material for assessment or reassessment of income. Similarly, when no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3)/144 of the Act was made then the AO is duty bound to assess

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

1) would be redundant which cannot be the intention of the legislature. Therefore, the ld. D/R has submitted that the provisions of section 153A do not require any incriminating material for assessment or reassessment of income. Similarly, when no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3)/144 of the Act was made then the AO is duty bound to assess

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

1) would be redundant which cannot be the intention of the legislature. Therefore, the ld. D/R has submitted that Smt. Jaya Prem Bhatia, Kota. the provisions of section 153A do not require any incriminating material for assessment or reassessment of income. Similarly, when no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3)/144 of the Act was made then

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

1) would be redundant which cannot be the intention of the legislature. Therefore, the ld. D/R has submitted that Smt. Jaya Prem Bhatia, Kota. the provisions of section 153A do not require any incriminating material for assessment or reassessment of income. Similarly, when no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3)/144 of the Act was made then

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

reassessment.\nHence, the arguments of the appellant are not found to be relevant with regard to\nincriminating material found during search.\nThis issue raised by the appellant is found to be without any merit. The\ndecisions relied upon by the appellant are on different facts and not found to be\napplicable on the facts of the case of the assessee

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

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

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

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

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

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

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

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

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1) of the Act and it was contended that such claim can be made in the return filed in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act as it was over riding all proceedings earlier taken overall. The AO denied deduction in assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act. The Court at para

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

173 (Kerala) is as under: 22 DCIT vs. M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd. "I. Section 153A, read with sections 132 and 132A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 -Search and seizure-Assessment in case of (Submission of returns for six years) -Assessment years 2002-03 to 2008-09- Whether any material unearthed during search operations or any statement

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

reassessment proceedings initiated by notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were not legally transferred by the Chief Commissioner/Director General, Kolkata after recording and communicating the reasons and providing opportunity to the appellant as prescribed u/s 127(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Our submissions:- Without prejudice to the above ground, it would be seen that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

173 147-203 2019-20 27.04.2022 3,92,77,480 17,02,82,090 13,10,04,612 204-273 2020-21 26.04.2022 6,69,95,750 18,79,04,440 12,09,08,688 274-324 2021-22 26.04.2022 10,49,04,680 65,30,18,040 54,81,13,364 325-405 Aggrieved from the additions made

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

173 147-203 2019-20 27.04.2022 3,92,77,480 17,02,82,090 13,10,04,612 204-273 2020-21 26.04.2022 6,69,95,750 18,79,04,440 12,09,08,688 274-324 2021-22 26.04.2022 10,49,04,680 65,30,18,040 54,81,13,364 325-405 Aggrieved from the additions made