SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

253 of the IT Act. Therefore, the assessee could have very well file the cross objection after receiving the notice of appeals filed by the revenue against the impugned orders of the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) has not adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee regarding validity of reopening on the reason that the issue of quantum

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

253 CTR 306\n(Gujarat)(01-03-2011) held that If upon further inquiry by the Assessing Officer,\nsuch details could be gathered and the nature of payment received by the\nassessee from SBL could be ascertained, to find out whether the same should be\ntreated as 'deemed dividend' under section 2(22)(e) or not, the same, would

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

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

reassessment or recomputation and an order imposing a penalty under section 271 and other provisions. In its turn, section 253

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassesses any\nincome chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for any assessment year, with respect to\nwhich he had \"reason to believe\" to be so, then only, in addition he can also put to tax the other\nincome chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment, and which has come to his notice\nsubsequently, in the course of proceedings under

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. The assessee company has submitted an application praying for raising the following additional ground of appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

reassessment was completed on 12.12.2018 whereby the AO has made addition under section 68 of the IT Act of Rs. 12,74,04,995/- along with disallowance of commission payment and freight payment total amounting to Rs. 12,83,51,717/-. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) both on merits of the addition

ACIT, NCR BUILDING, JAIPUR vs. HANS RAJ AGARWAL, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR JAIPUR

39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 148 of the said Act is issued without jurisdiction and requires to be set aside. The consequential order dated 15 th October 2019 also requires to be set aside.” 4.17 In summing up, in the present case, I find that the scrutiny assessment was originally completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 11.12.2018 in the case

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

reassessment proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of ld. AO of not allowing exemption to the assessee trust in accordance with section 11(2). The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts

SOYALA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,TONK vs. ITO, TONK, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the appeal was required to be filed on or before 3rd August, 2024. However, the same could not be filed in time due to the reason that our counsel Shri Ravindra Kumar Jain, Advocate had to be admitted in hospital on 10.07.2024 for cardiac problem and was operated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. VINOD KUMAR JHARCHUR HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application filed under rule 27

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act on various reasons/ grounds. Thus there was an only a single technical issue before the Ld.CIT (A) which was challenged/ argued by the assessee but from different angles/propositions. The Ld. CIT (A) decided the technical issue in favor of the assessee on other reasons except for the issue on hand

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

253 ITR 798\n(SC).\nPrayer In view of above facts and circumstance and with the sympathy and settled legal\nposition, the delay so caused may kindly be condoned.\"\nTo this effect, the assesee has filed an affidavit as to the condonation of delay in\nfiling the appeal.\n2.2 The ld. AR of the assessee appearing in this appeal submitted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay of 153 days in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Now, coming to the merits of the case, as there were three orders

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

sections": ["144", "147", "271(1)(c)", "142(1)", "143(2)", "156", "69A", "194A", "253", "249(3)"], "issues": "Whether the reassessment

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

253,\n265):\n\n(i) In respect of the aforesaid lenders, it has been alleged that an inquiry was\nconducted on 01.10.2018 and 02.10.2018 and on said basis it has been\nalleged that physical verification of these lenders could not be made therefore\nthe entities are not in existence.\n\n(ii) A perusal of Inspector Report dated 01.10.2018 makes

NARESH KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

reassessment order was held to be erroneous by the ld. PCIT, on issues which did not form part of the reasons recorded. Subsequently, the appellate proceedings, assumption of jurisdiction by ld. PCIT, under Section 263 was held to be illegal and not as per law 3.12.i Software Consultants [2012] 341 ITR 240 (Delhi High Court) 3.12.ii Prosperous Buildcon