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

reassessment was just and proper - Held, yes\n[Para 2] [In favour of revenue]\"\nHon'ble High Court Of Kerala in the case of Kerala Financial Corporation v.\nJoint Commissioner of Income-tax [2009] 308 ITR 434 (Kerala)/[2009] 221 CTR\n613 (Kerala) [19-12-2007] held that, admittedly, the assessee was not entitled to\nclaim deduction under section

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)

1,30,00,385/-which is chargeable to tax has escaped from assessment within the meaning of 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

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

1) dated 21/03/2022 (correct date is 21/02/2022) (PB Page 96-105), wherein detail of transaction executed by assessee company through broker M/s SMC Global Securities Limited were provided. 8. Sir, one fails to understand that how detail of transaction which in fact executed by assessee can held as supporting evidence for allegation without any material based on which

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

Reassessment – Service of notice – Primary email id – Notice\nissued on the secondary notice\nService of the notice is not valid\n147, 282, Rule 127, Art. 226]\nFailure to participate in the proceedings\nReassessment was quashed. [S. 144, 144B,\n1.4The ITAT, Pune Bench, in the case of York Transport Equipment (India) Pvt. Ltd.\nvs. ITO in ITA No.125/PUN/2024, has held that

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

1) Bal Chand Jain & Sons v. DCIT (2014) 221 Taxman 123 (All.) (HC)\nProvisions of sub-section 3 of section 124 bar an assessee from raising\nquestion of jurisdiction before First Appellate Authority or Tribunal if such\nan objection has not been raised before Assessing Authority at very first\nstage.\n(ii) CIT v. All India Children Care & Educational Development

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since the original assessments were made and it was open to the\nIncome Tax Officer to make that presumption

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)

221 sq. meters in village Raj Darbar and Jhai Jaipur respectively in lieu of its land situated in Nevta and Jhai village which was acquired by the State Government u/s 4(1) of the land acquisition act, 1984 for development of SEZ. In compliance of the allotment letter dated 18.06.2015 issued by JDA, the company has deposited

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)

221 sq. meters in village Raj Darbar and Jhai Jaipur respectively in lieu of its land situated in Nevta and Jhai village which was acquired by the State Government u/s 4(1) of the land acquisition act, 1984 for development of SEZ. In compliance of the allotment letter dated 18.06.2015 issued by JDA, the company has deposited

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)

221 sq. meters in village Raj Darbar and Jhai Jaipur respectively in lieu of its land situated in Nevta and Jhai village which was acquired by the State Government u/s 4(1) of the land acquisition act, 1984 for development of SEZ. In compliance of the allotment letter dated 18.06.2015 issued by JDA, the company has deposited

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)

221 sq. meters in village Raj Darbar and Jhai Jaipur respectively in lieu of its land situated in Nevta and Jhai village which was acquired by the State Government u/s 4(1) of the land acquisition act, 1984 for development of SEZ. In compliance of the allotment letter dated 18.06.2015 issued by JDA, the company has deposited

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)

221 also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that fraud vitiates all judicial acts whether in rem or in personam and that a judgment, decree or order obtained by fraud has to be treated as non-est and nullity, whether by the Court of first instance or by the final Court and that the same can be challenged

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIDHUSHI KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

1) of section 153A of the Act, in every case where there is a search or requisition, the Assessing Officer is obliged to issue notice to such person to furnish returns of income for the six years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made, any addition or disallowance

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

221 (Kolkata Trib) (TM)(DPB 36-39) "It was also noted that in the current year itself, the assessee has earned a profit of Rs. 3,50,51,698, and when amounts of Rs. 5,10,399 towards prior period expenses as also of Rs. 1,86,44,232 towards non-cash expenses in the nature of depreciation is added

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

1 of section 142 of 1961 Act was issued to produce, or cause\nto be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to\nproduce, or cause to be produced, such books of account or other documents as\nrequired by such suffimons or notice etc etc., can authorise the officers referred\ntherein 10 entre and search

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

221 142(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-2013 3. Copy of Reply to the notice dated 28.08.2018 and 19.08.2018 222 225 for the A.Y. 2012-2013 4. Copy of notice dated 27.08.2018 and 19.08.2018 issued u/s 226 239 28 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT 142(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2013-2014 5. Copy

MOHAMMED SABIR BABUBHAI SHAIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings as\ninitiated by the Id. AO having been barred by limitation and hence illegal and\nvoid-ab initio.\"\nTo support the ground, the Id. AR of the assessee submitted that the above\nground so raised is purely legal in nature. The factual position in relation to\nthe notice having been issued

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

221 (Bombay)/(2023) 458 ITR 157\n(Bombay) 25-09-2023) as under :-\n“On perusal of the notice dated 31.3.2021 issued under section 148(1) of\nthe Act of 1961 coupled with the reasons assigned by the respondents for\nseeking to re-open the proceedings it becomes clear that it is on the basis\nof the information shared

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

1 SCC 453 being\napposite are extracted hereafter :\n“... Further the report submitted by him under Section 151(2) does not mention any reason for\ncoming to the conclusion that it is a fit case for the issue of a notice under Section 148. We are\nalso of the opinion that the Commissioner has mechanically accorded permission