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

reassessment proceedings based on an audit objection are valid if\nthe AO has independently examined the matter and recorded satisfaction.\n2. 3. Independent Application of Mind by AO\nIn the present case, the AO has not merely acted on the directions of the IAP but\nhas duly recorded his independent satisfaction based on the materials brought to\nhis notice. This

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

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

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

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

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

3 to s.147. Therefore, for the\npurpose of limitation under s.263(2), if the jurisdiction under s.263 is\ninvoked on an issue which was not subject-matter of reassessment, then\nthe limitation would reckon from the original assessment order and not\nfrom the reassessment order.”\nAccordingly, the proceedings-initiated u/s 263 deserves to be quashed.\n4. Alternatively, and without prejudice

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

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 , 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

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

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

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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

3 , 6, 20 & 26. However, the perusal of the statement of Shri Nikhil Kr.Goyal reveals that in the entire statement, Shri Nikhil Kumar Goyal has no where alleged that he made any unaccounted purchases from the assessee. He also expressed his inability in furnishing the addresses of the persons appearing in the loose papers on the ground that these papers

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

3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated\n19/02/2016.\n\n2. The grievance of the assessee is two fold; firstly, raising a\nlegal issue challenging the validity of the order passed u/s.147 of\nthe Act; and secondly, against the addition of Rs.20,00,000/-\nmade u/s.68 of the Act. Since the legal ground goes to the root\n\n(M/s. Ashoka Portfolio

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.

section 263 are different and not available to ld. AO himself. 14. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE it is submitted that the case of the assessee company was selected for reassessment on the basis of audit objection of Audit Party of Department [PB 113-115]. The computation of book profits by the assessee company, in the opinion of Audit Team, legally

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)

3 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. Id. CIT(A)/NFAC, has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO, in reopening the case of the assessee under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A)/NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts

HARI NARAYAN MEENA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JAIPUR

reassessment\neven though fully aware of the related facts. On the facts and in the\ncircumstances of the appellant, the learned AO has legally and factually\nerred in making in repeating the disallowances for computing the\ncapital gains.\n3. The AO erred in not following principal of the natural justice, by\nfailing to allow personal hearing as requested and failing