DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

234 (Kerala) as under: "Section 1534. read with section 132 and 132A of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and seizure-Assessment in case of (Scope of) - Assessment years 2002- 03 to 2006-07 Whether where there was a disclosure made by giving a statement during course of search. Assessing Officer, by virtue of power conferred on him under section

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)

234 ITR 865, 869, 870 (Pat).it is held “Resort to section 150 (1) can be taken only in cases where it becomes necessary to make assessment or reassessment

SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

reassessment proceedings against the assessee. CIT Vs. Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd. (2009) 313 ITR 231 (Raj) SLP dismissed :(2009) 313 ITR (St.) 27 (SC) Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Lt. Vs. Dy. CIT (2016)287 CTR ( Del.) 621 2. Re- assessment without issue of notice u/s 143(2) :- That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

reassessment proceedings and confirm the addition\nof ₹4,96,87,796/- and uphold the interest charged under Section 234 and the penalty

SHRI KRISHNA BOTHRA 302, VINAYAK APARTMENT PRITHVIRAJ ROAD, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6 (2), JAIPUR, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 967/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 Krishna Bothra, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 302, Vinayak Apartment, Pritiviraj Ward 6(2) Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Arzpb 5089 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri H.M. Singhvi (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/05/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11 Wherein Sole Effective Ground Of Appeal Has Been Taken & The Same Is Reproduced As Under: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Went Wrong In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 9,41,283/- Of Interest U/S 234A(1) Whereas It Should Be Charged As Per Sec. 234A(3) Which Is Bad In Law.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the earlier assessment aforesaid. From the reading of sub sec (3) the interest was rightly charged for 19 months and therefore the increase of interest u/s 234A by way of rectification is bad in law. Further

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

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

reassessment was completed vide order dated\n26.03.2015 by making a further disallowance of Rs.1,38,95,995/- u/s\n40(a)(ia) of the Act (and the total reassessed income of Rs.\n5,97,80,77,790/-). However, this was followed by a notice u/s 263 with\nreference to the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. 147 of the\nAct

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

234\nTaxman 771(SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP\nagainst High Court's order, wherein it was held that since assessee himself\nhad stated in sworn statement during search and seizure about his\nundisclosed income tax was to be levied on basis of admission without\nscrutinizing documents. The ld. AO also noted that the statement made

DEEPAK JAIN,C-SCHEME vs. ITO WARD 2(1), BHAGWAN DAS ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceeding being illegal and void ab initio. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Id AO in making addition of Rs. 18,43,234, under Section

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

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

234 (Kerala)/[2016] 240 Taxman 168 (Kerala)/[2016] 385 ITR 624 (Kerala) [2016] 287 CTGR 187 (Kerala)[22-03-2016], what can be considered as incriminating material was discussed as under :-\n66\n18. On going through Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, what we find is that if the authority specified therein has reason to believe that any person

SHRI PARNAMI PANCHAYAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings was not traceable. Accordingly, benefit of Section 11 was denied by the AO, vide order dated 30.09.2017. Against the order of the AO, assessee trust preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The said appeal was filed within stipulated time period i.e. on 16.11.2017. In the interregnum, the assessee trust again applied for registration u/s 12AA

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the Revenue as well as CO's of\nthe assessee are dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 03/10/2024

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect\nof completed assessments/unabated assessments.\nMeaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition\ncan be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the\ncourse of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act,\n1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

BINA KANWAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD TONK, TONK

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

234 A.B.C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full.’’ 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by passing

SHREE AURO IRON LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings. Thereafter the\nld. PCIT 1, Jaipur had issued a show cause notice dated 13.02.2024 fixing the\ndate of hearing as 20.02.2024 whereby she asked the response of the assessee on\nthe issue of not adding the amount of variation in the closing stock for a sum of Rs.\n2,51,93,726/- on account of change of system

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

234 A,B,C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging\nof any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of\nlaw and facts, may kindly be deleted in full.\n4. The appellant prays your honors indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any\nof the grounds of the appeal on or before

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

234 A,B,C. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging\nof any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of\nlaw and facts, may kindly be deleted in full.\n4. The appellant prays your honors indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any\nof the grounds of the appeal on or before

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the results all the appeals filed by the assessee ITA Nos

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of Section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional CIT resulting in vitiating

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

234 (Guj)\"\n1. In the judgement in the case of Principal CIT vs. Paramount Communication\nPvt. Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Delhi), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, has held as\nunder-\n\"8......... While it is true that the court is conscious that the reassessment notice\nshould not have been routinely issued, at the same time, the nature

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)

section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 30.08.2017 which got served upon the assessee through registered post on 31.08.2017. In compliance with the notice the assessee filed the return of income on 04.09.2017 declaring the same income as it was filed and assessed as such. The reasons recorded were as requested provided to the assessee, the assessee