M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

25. The argument of the learned counsel that the AO is also free to disturb income, expenditure or deduction de hors the incriminating material, while making assessment under Section 153A of the Act is also not borne out from the scheme of the said provision which as noticed above is essentially in context of search and/or requisition. The provisions

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

25. The argument of the learned counsel that the AO is also free to disturb income, expenditure or deduction de hors the incriminating material, while making assessment under Section 153A of the Act is also not borne out from the scheme of the said provision which as noticed above is essentially in context of search and/or requisition. The provisions

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

25. The argument of the learned counsel that the AO is also free to disturb income, expenditure or deduction de hors the incriminating material, while making assessment under Section 153A of the Act is also not borne out from the scheme of the said provision which as noticed above is essentially in context of search and/or requisition. The provisions

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

reassess the income on account of transaction of purchase of land. However, the said land was purchased by M/s Shri Kalyan Builmart Pvt. Ltd. on 24/08/2006. Thereafter the assessee alongwith Shri Navratan Kothari and Shri Vimal Chand Surana (Individual) purchased the shares ITA 437/JP/2017_ 22 DCIT Vs. Vimal Chand Surana (HUF) of M/s Shri Kalyan Builmart Pvt. Ltd. from Shri

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

section (2) provides for revival of any assessment or reassessment which stood abated, if any proceeding or any order of assessment ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 25

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

section (2) provides for revival of any assessment or reassessment which stood abated, if any proceeding or any order of assessment ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 25

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

section (2) provides for revival of any assessment or reassessment which stood abated, if any proceeding or any order of assessment ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 25

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

section (2) provides for revival of any assessment or reassessment which stood abated, if any proceeding or any order of assessment ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 25

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

section (2) provides for revival of any assessment or reassessment which stood abated, if any proceeding or any order of assessment ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 25

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

section (2) provides for revival of any assessment or reassessment which stood abated, if any proceeding or any order of assessment ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 25

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

section (2) provides for revival of any assessment or reassessment which stood abated, if any proceeding or any order of assessment ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 25

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

section (2) provides for revival of any assessment or reassessment which stood abated, if any proceeding or any order of assessment ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 25

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

section (2) provides for revival of any assessment or reassessment which stood abated, if any proceeding or any order of assessment ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 25

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating