INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since the original assessments were made and it was open to the\nIncome Tax Officer to make that presumption

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

reassessment is not legally invalid. The\nappellant relied on various judicial decisions that the AO cannot reopen concluded\nassessment merely to re-examine any transaction for non-application of his mind on the\nmaterials already with him.\n\n5.13 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Calcutta Discount co. v. ITO (1961)\n41 ITR 191 held that once

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order: Further clause (6) sub clause (a) to sec 270A further defines UNDER-REPORTED INCOME, for the purpose of this Section Shall not Include- The amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or [the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

189/[2017] 84 taxmann.com 155/249Taxman 599 (Guj.), has held\nas under:\n\n40\nITA No. 360/JPR/2025 & CO No. 19/JPR/2025\nBharat Spun Pipe and Construction Co., Jaipur.\n\n"7. It is this judgment the assessee has challenged in the present appeal.\nFrom the material on record, it can be seen that the sum of Rs.74 lakhs was\noffered

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also on the spot verification/inspection made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also on the spot verification/inspection made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also on the spot verification/inspection made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also on the spot verification/inspection made

M/S ASHOKA PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed as per the\nterms indicated hereinabove

189 ITD 118\n(Jaipur - Trib.)\nDr. Ajit Gupta vs. ACIT (2016) 383 ITR 361 (Del. – HC)\nBhaijee Commodities (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2023) 202 ITD\n757 (Del. – Trib.)\nSmt. Anshita Vimal Jain vs. ITO (2023) 199 ITD 168\n(Surat - Trib.)\nFuture Tech IT Systems (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2021) 190 ITD\n52 (Chd. – Trib.)\n\n(M/s. Ashoka

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

reassessment order.”\nAccordingly, the proceedings-initiated u/s 263 deserves to be quashed.\n4. Alternatively, and without prejudice to above our submissions on\nmerits are as under:\nOn the issues raised by the Ld. CIT in the SCN, u/s 263 of the Act, on\nthe remaining four issues narrated at page 29 of the impugned order, the\nfollowing submissions were made

G.S. DREAM HOME LLP,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

189 ITD 450 (Mum.) (Trib.) Where reasons communicated to assessee for reopening assessment were incomplete and nowhere in reasons recorded failure on part of assessee to furnish full and true information necessary for purpose of assessment was mentioned, entire reassessment proceedings being void ab initio were to be set aside. The Ld. CIT(A) has not decided this legal contention

SDC CONSTRUCTION,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 1(3), JIAPUR

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

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

reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee under Section 147. Our Submission We submit that reopening u/s 148 of the act is bad in law as no material has been provided for reopening as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs Ashish Agarwal as well as the Ld AO has not properly followed the procedure prescribed

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

189 Taxman 420 • Balaji Health Care Private Limited (ITA No. 566/JP/2018) In view of above, it was submitted that reassessment proceedings are illegal, without jurisdiction and, therefore, deserve to be quashed. 10. Per contra, the ld. DR/CIT relied on the finding of the lower authorities and our reference was drawn to the findings of the ld. CIT(A) which

NIKKI PACHISIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2),, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the Act is bad in law and the re-assessment order is quashed. As we have quashed the reassessment on the preliminary legal ground of jurisdiction, various other grounds raised by the assessee on merits are not decided as they become only academic at this stage. Ground Nos. 1 to 5 are allowed." 3. The appeallant also

DALAS BIOTECH LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

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

reassessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this Allahabad High Court had made following observations, 14. We have considered the facts in the present case Shri Mukesh J. Shah sold his land during A.Y. 2009-10 for Rs. 51.09 crores and assessed to tax by ITO, Ward

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

reassessment was not justified. • Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. D. N. Pachori [2010] 189 Taxman 420 wherein it was held as under: 16 Paris Elysees India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT “..CIT and ITAT rightly held that for want of any material, there was no justification for issuance of notice under section

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF SUCH AMOUNT- NOT VALID INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, S. 147-VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF INCOME SCHEME, 1997-FINANCE ACT, 1997, SS. 68, 78” Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs Manju Osatwal in Appeal No. ITAT/96/2021 has held as under: “In the case at hand, the tax paid by the assessee