MAHENDRA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

47,600/-. The\nld. AO has issued the notice u/s 148 on 28.09.2016. In response thereto the assesssee\nhas filed the letter on 17.10.2016 at the Dak Counter of the AO, in response to the notice\nunder section 148 dt. 28.09.2016 and admittedly submitted that the return of income filed\nunder section 139 of the Act may be treated

ASHOK SINGH ,IMLI PHATAK vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2(47) and/or the\nTransfer of Property Act is not strictly crucial as the main question is of the\nunaccounted payment made by the appellant. Such transactions have taken\nplace in secret / out of books and direct evidence about such transaction would\nbe not available. In view of these facts and legal jurisprudence, the approach\nadopted in the assessment order

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

47 seeks to amend section 153C of the Income-tax Act relating to\nassessment of income of any other person.\nUnder the existing provisions of section 153A, where the Assessing Officer is\nsatisfied that books of account or documents or assets seized under section 132\nor requisitioned under section 132A belong to a person other than a person in\nwhose

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

v ITO (1993) 203 ITR 186, 190, 191 (Guj). For the purpose of section 150, so 17 Shri Vimal Chand Surana HUF as to enable the authority to issue the notice under section 148 at any time without being curtailed by the time-limit prescribed under section 149, there must be satisfaction of the ingredients under Explanation 2 to section

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) of the Act is a jurisdictional pre-condition to finalizing the reassessment. (iv) The onus is on the Revenue to show that proper service of notice has been effected under Section 148 of the Act on the Assessee or an agent duly empowered by him to accept notices on his behalf. In the present case, the Revenue has failed

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

v. Chander Sen AIR 1986 SC 1753 and the Supreme Court held that the view taken in the aforesaid case of Gujarat High Court P in Dr. Babubhai Mansukhbhai is not the correct view and the Apex Court upheld the view taken by other High Courts referred to above. The Apex Court in para 20 of the aforesaid judgment said

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)

v) The details/particulars of the acquisition proceedings are as under :- • Gazette Notification for acquisition of the land was issued on 20.12.2005 and published in the official Gazette on 20.12.2005. • Final Notification of land acquisition was issued by the Government on 8th May 2006. Subsequently under section 4(1) of the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a notification was issued

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)

v) The details/particulars of the acquisition proceedings are as under :- • Gazette Notification for acquisition of the land was issued on 20.12.2005 and published in the official Gazette on 20.12.2005. • Final Notification of land acquisition was issued by the Government on 8th May 2006. Subsequently under section 4(1) of the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a notification was issued

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)

v) The details/particulars of the acquisition proceedings are as under :- • Gazette Notification for acquisition of the land was issued on 20.12.2005 and published in the official Gazette on 20.12.2005. • Final Notification of land acquisition was issued by the Government on 8th May 2006. Subsequently under section 4(1) of the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a notification was issued

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)

v) The details/particulars of the acquisition proceedings are as under :- • Gazette Notification for acquisition of the land was issued on 20.12.2005 and published in the official Gazette on 20.12.2005. • Final Notification of land acquisition was issued by the Government on 8th May 2006. Subsequently under section 4(1) of the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a notification was issued

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

reassess the income in respect of any issue which has escaped assessment and which come to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section o) Oriental Bank of Commerce v Ad.CIT [2014] 90 CCH 27 Del HC p) Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memom v ITO Special Civil Application No.21030 of 2017 – Guj HC The Assessing Officer

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

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

reassessment \non the same set of facts.\nPage-93 relying on which the AO has based the addition and treated it to be \nremission of liability is being now relied by Ld.CIT(A) to prove that it was a gift. It \nmay be mentioned that this paper is undated, was never confronted to the \nassessee either during the search

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

47 seeks to amend section 153C of the Income-tax Act relating to \nassessment of income of any other person. \nUnder the existing provisions of section 153A, where the Assessing Officer is \nsatisfied that books of account or documents or assets seized under section 132 \nor requisitioned under section 132A belong to a person other than a person in \nwhose

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

47 seeks to amend section 153C of the Income-tax Act relating to \nassessment of income of any other person. \n\nUnder the existing provisions of section 153A, where the Assessing Officer is \nsatisfied that books of account or documents or assets seized under section 132 \nor requisitioned under section 132A belong to a person other than a person

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

v. ACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO and FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing assessment or reassessment order and it is only FAO which could issue notice under section

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

v. Shri Ram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343. The Ld. CIT (A) after considering above submissions and also on relying on the judgement of jurisdiction High Court in case of Dhadda Exports Vs. I.T.O. (2015) 58 Taxmann.com 176 (Raj.) (P. B. Page 136-140). Held the proceedings initiated by A.O. u/s 147 as unsustainable in law which is correct

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

47 ITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025 DCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others appropriate proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act, relying on the same judgment of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), CBDT Instruction No. 1/2023 (CLC 35-40), and the provisions of Section 150 of the Act. The assessee, while supporting the ultimate relief