DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

reassessment under sections 147/148 of the Act has to be saved, otherwise the Revenue would be left without remedy." The material on record has been considered. The satisfaction note does not refer to incriminating seized material from search on other person which would be having a bearing on the determination of total income of the appellant. The addition made

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

reassessment proceeding. Therefore, he cannot take a plea now that the proceedings were invalid. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Honda siel Power Products Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 197 Taxman 415 (Del.) has stated that the law postulates a duty on every assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for its assessment

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

1), bei Vehicle rating of the gross vehicle weight and axel weight respectively as duly certified by the testing agencies for compliance of the rule 126, or in the maximum vehicle weight and maximum safe axle weight of each vehicle respectively as notified by the Central Government, or ill the maximum total load permitted to be carned by the tyre

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR DUSAD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that\nrevenue stands dismissed

reassess total income of such other person of\nsuch assessment year in the manner provided in section-153A.\n14[(3) Nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to a search\ninitiated under section-132 or books of account, other documents or any\nassets requisitioned under section-132A on or after the 1st day of April,\n2021.]”\nThe perusal

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

section\n11 (2) and 11(1)(a) of the\nAct\n33,50,772/-\n33,50,772/-\n5.\nUnverifiable Creditors\n16,75,286/-\n16,75,286/-\n6.\n15% of Construction\nExpenses\n1,20,00,440/-\n1,20,00,440/-\n7.\nDisallowance of Rs\n3,69,567 out of total\nexpenses

PRADEEP KUMAR DUSAD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that\nrevenue stands dismissed

1) of section-142 has been issued to him, or\n(b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no\nnotice under sub-section (2) of section-143 has been served and\nITA No. 1149 & 1192/JPR/2024\nShri Pradeep Kumar Dusad\n79\nlimitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section-143 has\nexpired

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

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

section 36(1)(va). No substantial question of law arises out of the\nimpugned orders of the ITAT. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M-s\nState Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.177-2011);\nCommissioner of Income Tax vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (D.B.\nIncome Tax Appeal No.189-2011), followed.\"\n4.2.4The Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench has also followed

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

reassessment\nproceedings completed on the basis of notice issued u/s 148 is beyond the time\nlimit stipulated u/s 149, is not in accordance with law and consequent order\npassed deserves to be held void ab initio.\n1.2 That, the ld. CIT(A) has further erred in holding the proceedings u/s 148 as\nvalid when the notice issued is itself

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

reassess the total income taking into consideration the incriminating\nmaterial unearthed during the search and the other material available with the\nAO inchiding the income declared in the returns: and\"\n6.4 The sufficiency or otherwise of the material gathered during the search and\nseizure for the purpose of making of assessment is to be seen from prospective\nof the stage

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

197\nITR 439 held as under:\n“A reading of sections 147 and 148 makes it clear that, at any rate, an assessment\nfor the first time made by resort to section 147 is a regular assessment. Section 148\nenjoins the Income-tax Officer before making an assessment under section 147 to\nserve a notice on the assessee containing

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassess the income, all the consequent proceedings were null and void and it was not a case of irregularity. Therefore, Section 292B of the Act had no application. Thus, it is submitted that the defect in the assessment order cannot be cured by relying on section 292B of the Act as it is not a procedural defect rather a substantive

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

197 of 2012 whereby the High Court held that the\nTribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,07,00,000 of \"on money\" said to have\nbeen received with respect to subject land of the assessee holding that the question what was the\nprice of the land at the rel-evant time, was a pure question

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

197 of 2012 whereby the High Court held that the\nTribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,07,00,000 of \"on money\" said to have\nbeen received with respect to subject land of the assessee holding that the question what was the\nprice of the land at the rel-evant time, was a pure question

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

197 Taxman 435 (Del) distinguished” (vii) Anand Shankar Mittal v/s DCIT (2010) 34 DTR 589 (JP Trib) (DPB 9- 19) Therefore, in view of the above, it is humbly prayed that Ld. CIT(A), may be pleased to kindly allow the present application and condone the delay of 640 days occurred in filing the aforesaid Appeal, and direct the listing

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

reassessment was not justified.\nIn the circumstances it is submitted that the information received from the some\nother officials, gathered by them in the course of search conducted in the case of\nsome third party has been simply relied upon for reopening of assessment and\nno independent inquiry whatsoever was carried out before reaching to the\nconclusion that income

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

reassessment was not justified.\nIn the circumstances it is submitted that the information received from the some\nother officials, gathered by them in the course of search conducted in the case of\nsome third party has been simply relied upon for reopening of assessment and\nno independent inquiry whatsoever was carried out before reaching to the\nconclusion that income

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

reassessment was not justified.\nIn the circumstances it is submitted that the information received from the some\nother officials, gathered by them in the course of search conducted in the case of\nsome third party has been simply relied upon for reopening of assessment and\nno independent inquiry whatsoever was carried out before reaching to the\nconclusion that income

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

reassessment was not justified.\nIn the circumstances it is submitted that the information received from the some\nother officials, gathered by them in the course of search conducted in the case of\nsome third party has been simply relied upon for reopening of assessment and\nno independent inquiry whatsoever was carried out before reaching to the\nconclusion that income

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

reassessment was not justified.\nIn the circumstances it is submitted that the information received from the some\nother officials, gathered by them in the course of search conducted in the case of\nsome third party has been simply relied upon for reopening of assessment and\nno independent inquiry whatsoever was carried out before reaching to the\nconclusion that income