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

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

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

GAJENDRA NATH SRIVASTAV THROUGH L/H VIPIN DEVI SRIVASTAV,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 253 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Tribunals Have Consistently Rejected Appeals Against Remand Orders 3.1 Following the Supreme Court, various Benches of the ITAT have consistently held that appeals against remand orders are not maintainable ITO v. Khalil M. Bharucha [(2003) 85 ITD 647 (Mum) (SB)] Special Bench held that remand orders are interlocutory and not appealable

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess\nall the six AYs' years immediately preceding the assessment correlatable\nto the search year or the “relevant assessment year” as defined in terms of\nExplanation 1 of Section 153A. The said approach is clearly unsustainable\nand contrary to the consistent line struck by the precedents noticed above.\nHon'ble Supreme Court in DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings in spite of multiple hearing opportunities provided to the appellant. The comprehensive submission made by the appellant is silent on this particular issue. It is needless to mention here that burden of proof lies on the appellant. 8 Raghav Commodities vs. ITO The appellant failed to discharge this primary onus

SYLVAN GREENS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassess the income. 4. The assessee's contentions are not found acceptable. The assessee received subsidy from public funds to assist in carrying on its business. The VAT amount constitutes public funds of the State. Where such subsidy is granted to assist the acquisition of new plant and machinery for expansion of business or for setting up of new industries

SMT. SHAFIKA BEGUM ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-5, 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. 929/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shafika Begum, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 320/4, H.A.R. Colony, Char Ward 5(5), Darwaja, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ajkpb 6970 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : None (A.O. Report). Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2021 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 28/03/2018 For The A.Y. 2009-10, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken:

reassessment proceedings, being illegal and without any basis. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in invoking the provisions of section 50C. of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and adopting the sale consideration at Rs. 33,26,416 against the declared

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

reassessment order u/s 143(3) r/w 147, has started with the total income as assessed after giving effect to the order of the CIT (A) u/s 250 dt. 09.04.2019 at Rs. 75,95,250/-. Therefore, the ld. AO cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath now. 3. It is submitted that S. 44AB of the Act has been