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

section 12A(1)(b) states that: [(1)] The provisions of section 11 and section 12 shall not apply inrelation to the income of any trust or institution unless the followingconditions are fulfilled, namely:- (b)where the total income of the trust or institution as computedunder this Act without giving effect to [the provisions of section 11 andsection 12 exceeds

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORTATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue

reassess existed. The Supreme Court, inter alia, held as follows (page 207 and 208) : "The existence of such alternative remedy is not however always a sufficient reason for refusing a party quick relief by a writ or order prohibiting an authority acting without jurisdiction from continuing such action. In the present case, the company contends that the conditions precedent

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue

reassess existed. The Supreme Court, inter alia, held as follows (page 207 and 208) : "The existence of such alternative remedy is not however always a sufficient reason for refusing a party quick relief by a writ or order prohibiting an authority acting without jurisdiction from continuing such action. In the present case, the company contends that the conditions precedent

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

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

reassessment order subjected to revision passed on 15.04.2021\nwhereas the Checkmate (Supra) decision came one and a half year later\nthereto i.e. 12.10.2022. Therefore, the CIT could not have found any\nfault in the assessment order or could neither held as the subject\nreassessment as erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue interest. On\nthis is aspect the law is well

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 28. The correctness of the claim of the Assessee for the purpose of Section 14A read with Rule

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)

Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment of any other person (Validity of) - Assessment year 2007- 08 - In appellate proceedings, Tribunal recorded a finding that satisfaction for initiation of proceedings under section 153C was recorded by Assessing officer on 02-02-2015 - Tribunal thus opined that Assessing Officer could not have initiated and passed

GCK STOCK PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 06/05/2025

207-216).\n3.2\nIn response to the same the assessee e-filed ITR on 16/08/2022vide\nAck. 428497880160822 with same total income.\n3.3\nThereafter notices were issued by the FAO u/s.142(1) on 18.01.2023\ncalling upon several information as per Annexure. The same was complied with\nby the assessee on 02.02.2023 in which necessary documents were submitted.\nThereafter the FAO issued

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

207 (Delhi) wherein it was held where income surrendered by assessee during survey had been shown by it in its regular income-tax return filed within prescribed time, penalty could be imposed. Thus the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the above decisions and deleted the penalty on the declared income of Rs. 1,80,00,000/-. However

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

207 (Delhi) wherein it was held where income surrendered by assessee during survey had been shown by it in its regular income-tax return filed within prescribed time, penalty could be imposed. Thus the Ld. CIT(A) has followed the above decisions and deleted the penalty on the declared income of Rs.1,80,00,000/-. However

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

207 (Delhi) wherein it was held where\nincome surrendered by assessee during survey had been shown by it in its regular\nincome-tax return filed within prescribed time, penalty could be imposed. Thus\nthe Ld. CIT(A) has followed the above decisions and deleted the penalty on the\ndeclared income of Rs.1,80,00,000/-. However

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

207 CTR (Del) 38 (supra).\n\"Income—Cash credit—Share application money—Burden of proof can seldom be discharged to\nthe hilt by the assessee-If the AO harbours doubts of the legitimacy of any subscription he is\nempowered, nay duty-bound, to carry out thorough investigations—But if the AO fails to unearth\nany wrong or illegal dealings

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GODAWARI ESTATES PVT. LTD.,

reassessing the completed assessment. Assessee’s appeal fails in Gr No 1. 3.2 Ground No. 2 & 3: “Regarding addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by applying the provisions of section 56(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 treating the share capital and premium thereon received from various companies as income of the assessee.” 3.2.1 Submission made: Relevant extracts

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment on the basis of credible and specific information received from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Jamshedpur, and corroborated by the Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand, indicating that M/s Sidhi Vinayak Metal & Salt Company Pvt. Ltd. was a known entry operator engaged in issuing bogus purchase bills without actual supply of goods. A list of beneficiaries of such

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

207 companies list as Jamakharchi company' and also provided list of beneficiaries, however list of beneficiaries company were not provided to us. It is further submitted that in statement dt. 08-02-18, he has pointed out the name of beneficiary as 'N M Group' but that is limited to transaction with Kalyani Suppliers Pvt Ltd and Everlink Vyapar

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

207 companies list as Jamakharchi company' and also provided list of beneficiaries, however list of beneficiaries company were not provided to us. It is further submitted that in statement dt. 08-02-18, he has pointed out the name of beneficiary as 'N M Group' but that is limited to transaction with Kalyani Suppliers Pvt Ltd and Everlink Vyapar

M/S SILVEX & CO.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

207 6.01 21,60,609 1.61 (upto 13.11.05)* * The assessee firm stood converted from partnership to limited company w.e.f. 14.11.2005, the figure for sales and G.P. have been taken upto 13.11.2005. From the above it is evident that the assessee has declared better results as compared to earlier years. Further neither the ld.AO nor the ld. CIT(A) has doubted

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassessment - Assessee filed a fresh return and paid differential tax and interest - Assessment was completed with no addition to disclosed income - However, Revenue imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), alleging concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - First Appellate Authority cancelled penalty due to lack of established concealment of income - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassessment - Assessee filed a fresh return and paid differential tax and interest - Assessment was completed with no addition to disclosed income - However, Revenue imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), alleging concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - First Appellate Authority cancelled penalty due to lack of established concealment of income - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal