R P WOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2019-20. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. The orders passed by the authorities below in so far as they are against the appellant are opposed to law, equity, weight of evidences, facts and circumstances of the case and are therefore liable to be quashed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

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 held that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

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 held that

SDC CONSTRUCTION,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 1(3), JIAPUR

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

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

reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee under Section 147. Our Submission We submit that reopening u/s 148 of the act is bad in law as no material has been provided for reopening as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs Ashish Agarwal as well as the Ld AO has not properly followed the procedure prescribed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, JAIPUR

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

reassessment proceedings under sections 147/48 of the Act. subject to\nfulfilment of the conditions mentioned in sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the\nRevenue cannot be left with no remedy. Therefore, even in case of block assessment\nunder section 153A and in case of unabated/completed assessment and in case no\nincriminating material is found during the search, the power

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

250 of the Act on 24.03.2025 for Assessment Year 2022-23. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arise as against the penalty order dated 26.09.2024 passed under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act] by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (2), Ajmer. 2 Urmila Rajendra Mundra vs. ITO 2. In this appeal

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

reassessment proceedings under sections 147/48 of the Act. subject to\nfulfilment of the conditions mentioned in sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the\nRevenue cannot be left with no remedy. Therefore, even in case of block assessment\nunder section 153A and in case of unabated/completed assessment and in case no\nincriminating material is found during the search, the power

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

4. He has relied upon the decision in the case of CIT v. Chetan Gupta [2015] 94 CCH 13 (Delhi); [2016] 382 ITR 613 (Delhi) wherein it has been held as under (page 622 of 382 ITR): "The court first would like to deal with the question whether notice under section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional requirement

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

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

reassessment proceedings under sections 147/48 of the Act. subject to\nfulfilment of the conditions mentioned in sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the\nRevenue cannot be left with no remedy. Therefore, even in case of block assessment\nunder section 153A and in case of unabated/completed assessment and in case no\nincriminating material is found during the search, the power

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

4) was introduced into section 34 were considered. This court indicated, keeping the provisions of section 34 in view, that there was really no distinction between 'issue' and 'service of notice'. Section 34, sub-section (1) as far as relevant provided thus: Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta vs. ITO '34. (1) If- (b) he may in cases falling under clause

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

250/- made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the IT Act. The appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” Ground Nos. 1 to 6 relate to deletion of additions on account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

250/- made by the AO by invoking the provisions of section 14A of the IT Act. The appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” Ground Nos. 1 to 6 relate to deletion of additions on account

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. VIJAY KUMAR SAINI, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2020-21. The revenue has raised the following grounds :- 1. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in granting relief to the assessee. 2. The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in holding that penalty in the case of tax payer was leviable not under

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)

250 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2008-09. The revenue has raised the following grounds :- 1. The ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts (independently & severally) in granting relief to the assessee. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (A), has erred in quashing the re-assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

250/- and claimed exempted U/s 10(38) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the transactions of purchase and sale of equity shares of listed companies were duly recorded in the books of account and capital gain arising from the sale of shares were reflected in the books of account regularly maintained by the assessee. The assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

reassessment under Sections 139,147,148,149,151 & 153. " In view of the above discussion, the assessment completed u/s 144 deserves to be quashed. The order of the Learned CIT(A) also deserved to be quashed on this ground. Additional Ground No.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned

M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

250,00,000 2011-2012 2010-2011 20,00,000 2014-2015 2013-2014 67,57,37,000 M/s Teac Consultants Pvt. Ltd Assessment Year Financial Year Share capital raised 1996-1997 1995-1996 26,00,000 2001-2002 2000-2001 73,98,000 2003-2004 2002-2003 1,00,00,000 2005-2006 2004-2005 4

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

250,00,000 2011-2012 2010-2011 20,00,000 2014-2015 2013-2014 67,57,37,000 M/s Teac Consultants Pvt. Ltd Assessment Year Financial Year Share capital raised 1996-1997 1995-1996 26,00,000 2001-2002 2000-2001 73,98,000 2003-2004 2002-2003 1,00,00,000 2005-2006 2004-2005 4