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

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

2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in any case where any such\nassessment, reassessment or recomputation as is referred to in that sub-section\nrelates to an assessment year in respect of which an assessment, reassessment\nor recomputation could not have been made at the time the order which was the\nsubject-matter of the appeal

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

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

2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in any case where any such\nassessment, reassessment or recomputation as is referred to in that sub-section\nrelates to an assessment year in respect of which an assessment, reassessment\nor recomputation could not have been made at the time the order which was the\nsubject-matter of the appeal

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

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

2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in any case where any such\nassessment, reassessment or recomputation as is referred to in that sub-section\nrelates to an assessment year in respect of which an assessment, reassessment\nor recomputation could not have been made at the time the order which was the\nsubject-matter of the appeal

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

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

2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in any case where any such\nassessment, reassessment or recomputation as is referred to in that sub-section\nrelates to an assessment year in respect of which an assessment, reassessment\nor recomputation could not have been made at the time the order which was the\nsubject-matter of the appeal

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

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

2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in any case where any such\nassessment, reassessment or recomputation as is referred to in that sub-section\nrelates to an assessment year in respect of which an assessment, reassessment\nor recomputation could not have been made at the time the order which was the\nsubject-matter of the appeal

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

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

2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in any case where any such\nassessment, reassessment or recomputation as is referred to in that sub-section\nrelates to an assessment year in respect of which an assessment, reassessment\nor recomputation could not have been made at the time the order which was the\nsubject-matter of the appeal

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

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

2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in any case where any such\nassessment, reassessment or recomputation as is referred to in that sub-section\nrelates to an assessment year in respect of which an assessment, reassessment\nor recomputation could not have been made at the time the order which was the\nsubject-matter of the appeal

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

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

2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in any case where any such\nassessment, reassessment or recomputation as is referred to in that sub-section\nrelates to an assessment year in respect of which an assessment, reassessment\nor recomputation could not have been made at the time the order which was the\nsubject-matter of the appeal

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

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

2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in any case where any such\nassessment, reassessment or recomputation as is referred to in that sub-section\nrelates to an assessment year in respect of which an assessment, reassessment\nor recomputation could not have been made at the time the order which was the\nsubject-matter of the appeal

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 54/54F, hence, the investment made u/s 54 of Rs. 1,01,01,010/- was rightly disallowed. 18. To summarize, the appellant's share of land sold at Rs.2,75,77,251/- on which capital gain was not disclosed as per Act despite it being a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act as the property was situated within

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

251 of the Act. 2. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

251 of the Act. 2. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

251,69,52,894/-(2) of the IT Act, 1961. This has virtually resulted in enhancement of income in the hands of the assessee.” 2.2 Whereas, vide ITA No. 868/JPR/2024 the revenue challenged the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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)

reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) must function strictly within the statutory confines of Section 251, and any exercise of power beyond such statutory limits—such as the impugned direction in the present case—is clearly ultra vires and legally unsustainable. 2.6.vi. In the present case, the ld. CIT(A) essentially attempted to do indirectly what

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)

reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) must function strictly within the statutory confines of Section 251, and any exercise of power beyond such statutory limits—such as the impugned direction in the present case—is clearly ultra vires and legally unsustainable. 2.6.vi. In the present case, the ld. CIT(A) essentially attempted to do indirectly what

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

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 147/148. Thus, the\nId. CIT(A) must function strictly within the statutory confines of Section 251,\nand any exercise of power beyond such statutory limits such as the\nimpugned direction in the present case is clearly ultra vires and legally\nunsustainable.\n2.6.vi. In the present case, the Id. CIT(A) essentially attempted to do indirectly what

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

251, \nwhich state the powers of the CIT(A). As a matter of fact, he made a reassessment \non the same set of facts.\nPage-93 relying on which the AO has based the addition and treated it to be \nremission of liability is being now relied by Ld.CIT(A) to prove that it was a gift. It \nmay