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

PADAM CHAND DHADDA HUF,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

220 (Delhi), the Hon'ble High Court considered the above referred case of Hotel Blue Moon and other cases of various high courts and held as under: "12. The narration of facts as noted above by the Court makes it clear that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the Assessee after 16th December

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

2, Madhab\nKisto Sett Lane, Kolkata, 700007. In this regard certificate issued by land lord\nShri Santosh Kumar Soni (CIT(A) PBP-101-102) and bill of Rent (CIT(A)\nPBP-99-100) issued to lender company by land lord is enclosed.\n\n(iv) The existence of said place is further evident from copy of bill issued for\nelectricity

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

220\n19,29,791\n2016-17 (5,96,200) 264\n6,14,267\n2017-18 (2,10,000)\n2,10,000\n39,27,473\nCapital Gain in FY 2018-\n19\n15,39,545\nDeductions/s 54 (Property\nPurchased in 28 May 2018\nRs.38,20,000/-\n15,39,545\nNIL\nDRP\nLong Term Capital Gain\nNe\nD\nDRP.1. Ne\nariat.\n3.4 However

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

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, 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

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

2 & 5, land transactions were found in respect of land at village Chainpura, behind EP land. The statement of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta was recorded under section 132(4) wherein he has stated that a sum of Rs. 96,00,000/- has been given by the assessee by cheque and further amount of Rs. 3-4 crores in cash

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

2 & 5, land transactions were found in respect of land at village Chainpura, behind EP land. The statement of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta was recorded under section 132(4) wherein he has stated that a sum of Rs. 96,00,000/- has been given by the assessee by cheque and further amount of Rs. 3-4 crores in cash

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

2 & 5, land transactions were found in respect of land at village Chainpura, behind EP land. The statement of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta was recorded under section 132(4) wherein he has stated that a sum of Rs. 96,00,000/- has been given by the assessee by cheque and further amount of Rs. 3-4 crores in cash

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

2 & 5, land transactions were found in respect of land at village Chainpura, behind EP land. The statement of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta was recorded under section 132(4) wherein he has stated that a sum of Rs. 96,00,000/- has been given by the assessee by cheque and further amount of Rs. 3-4 crores in cash

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

2 & 5, land transactions were found in respect of land at village Chainpura, behind EP land. The statement of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta was recorded under section 132(4) wherein he has stated that a sum of Rs. 96,00,000/- has been given by the assessee by cheque and further amount of Rs. 3-4 crores in cash

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

2 & 5, land transactions were found in respect of land at village Chainpura, behind EP land. The statement of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta was recorded under section 132(4) wherein he has stated that a sum of Rs. 96,00,000/- has been given by the assessee by cheque and further amount of Rs. 3-4 crores in cash

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

2 & 5, land transactions were found in respect of land at village Chainpura, behind EP land. The statement of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta was recorded under section 132(4) wherein he has stated that a sum of Rs. 96,00,000/- has been given by the assessee by cheque and further amount of Rs. 3-4 crores in cash

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

reassessment proceedings initiated by notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were not legally transferred by the Chief Commissioner/Director General, Kolkata after recording and communicating the reasons and providing opportunity to the appellant as prescribed u/s 127(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Our submissions:- Without prejudice to the above ground, it would be seen that

SHRI SURESH CHAND MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

220/-. The AO accepted the returned income except a disallowance of Rs. 9400/- of deduction claimed under section 80C of the Act. The AO initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271AAB by issuing show cause notice dated 23rd March, 2016 when the assessment order was passed and further a notice dated 12.08.2016 was also issued under section 274 read with