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

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

reassessments contemplated under section 153A. There is also no requirement under section 153A and other provisions requiring the Department to collect information and evidence for each and every year for six previous years under section 153A. Therefore, the argument of assessee that the information gathered either during pre-search enquiry or during the course of search cannot be made

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

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

reassessments contemplated under section 153A. There is also no requirement under section 153A and other provisions requiring the Department to collect information and evidence for each and every year for six previous years under section 153A. Therefore, the argument of assessee that the information gathered either during pre-search enquiry or during the course of search cannot be made

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

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

reassessments contemplated under section 153A. There is also no requirement under section 153A and other provisions requiring the Department to collect information and evidence for each and every year for six previous years under section 153A. Therefore, the argument of assessee that the information gathered either during pre-search enquiry or during the course of search cannot be made

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

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

reassessment is not valid when no addition is made on the reasons recorded by the AO. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Singh 220 CTR 629 (Raj.). The ld. A/R has referred to the objections raised against the notice issued under section

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

reassessment is not valid when no addition is made on the reasons recorded by the AO. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Singh 220 CTR 629 (Raj.). The ld. A/R has referred to the objections raised against the notice issued under section

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

reassessment is not valid when no addition is made on the reasons recorded by the AO. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Singh 220 CTR 629 (Raj.). The ld. A/R has referred to the objections raised against the notice issued under section

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

reassessment is not valid when no addition is made on the reasons recorded by the AO. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Singh 220 CTR 629 (Raj.). The ld. A/R has referred to the objections raised against the notice issued under section

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

reassessment is not valid when no addition is made on the reasons recorded by the AO. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Singh 220 CTR 629 (Raj.). The ld. A/R has referred to the objections raised against the notice issued under section

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

reassessment is not valid when no addition is made on the reasons recorded by the AO. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Singh 220 CTR 629 (Raj.). The ld. A/R has referred to the objections raised against the notice issued under section

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

reassessment is not valid when no addition is made on the reasons recorded by the AO. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Singh 220 CTR 629 (Raj.). The ld. A/R has referred to the objections raised against the notice issued under section

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

reassesses any income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment for any assessment year, with respect to which he had "reason to believe" to be so, then only, in addition, he can also put to tax, the other income, chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment, and which has come to his notice subsequently, in the course of proceedings under

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

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SHRI SALASAR BALAJI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 147/148, but then, once he came\nto the conclusion, that the income, with respect to which he had entertained \"reason to believe\"\nto have escaped assessment, was found to have been explained, his jurisdiction came to a stop\nat that, and he did not continue to possess jurisdiction, to put to tax, any other income, which\nsubsequently came