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)

reassess returns of assessee not only for undisclosed income, which was found during search operation but also with regard to material that was available at time of original assessment- Held, yes [Para 111 [In favour of revenue/Matter remanded] (vii) The head note in the case of B. Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) is as under: "Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

reassessment resulting into the demand or proceedings of penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

reassessment resulting into the demand or proceedings of penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

reassessment resulting into the demand or proceedings of penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

reassessment resulting into the demand or proceedings of penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that

M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassessment resulting into the demand or proceedings of penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that

M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassessment resulting into the demand or proceedings of penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

reassessment resulting into the demand or proceedings of penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

195 (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rock Fort Metal & Minerals Ltd. [2011] 198 TAXMAN 497 (Delhi), Divine Leasing & Finance Limited [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Delhi) CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. [1986) 159 ITR 78/25 Taxman 80F (SC) and others on this question of law. 5.10 Further, power to call for information/production of evidences or enforcing attendance under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

195 (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rock Fort Metal & Minerals Ltd. [2011] 198 TAXMAN 497 (Delhi), Divine Leasing & Finance Limited [2008] 299 ITR 268 (Delhi) CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. [1986) 159 ITR 78/25 Taxman 80F (SC) and others on this question of law. 5.10 Further, power to call for information/production of evidences or enforcing attendance under

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

reassess returns of assessee not only for undisclosed income, which was found during search operation but also with regard to material that was available at time of original assessment - Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour of revenue/Matter remanded] (vii) The head note in the case of DR. A. V. Sreekumar Vs CIT [2018] 90 taxmann.com 355 (Kerala) is as under

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

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

reassess returns of assessee not only for undisclosed income, which was found during search operation but also with regard to material that was available at time of original assessment Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour of revenue/Matter remanded] (vii) The head note in the case of B. Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) is as under: "Section

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

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

reassess returns of assessee not only for undisclosed income, which was found during search operation but also with regard to material that was available at time of original assessment Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour of revenue/Matter remanded] (vii) The head note in the case of B. Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) is as under: "Section

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

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

reassess returns of assessee not only for undisclosed income, which was found during search operation but also with regard to material that was available at time of original assessment Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour of revenue/Matter remanded] (vii) The head note in the case of B. Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) is as under: "Section

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

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

reassess returns of assessee not only for undisclosed income, which was found during search operation but also with regard to material that was available at time of original assessment Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour of revenue/Matter remanded] (vii) The head note in the case of B. Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) is as under: "Section

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

ACIT, ALWAR vs. M/S PRIME CHEM OIL LTD.,, ALWAR

195 Taxman 117 (Bombay) which has considered both the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Shri Ram Singh's case (Supra) and also the effect of insertion of explanation 3 to section 147 and whether the said decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court still holds good in law post insertion of explanation 3 to section

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)

195 (SC)]. 3.5. Legal Provisions and Precedents 1. Applicability of Section 153A: • Section 153A requires a return to be filed in response to a notice issued under the provision. • The revised return filed on 21.11.2019 does not align with the timelines or conditions specified under Section 139(5) and is therefore invalid. • The Hon'ble Madras High Court