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

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

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

2, Madhab\nKisto Sett Lane, Kolkata, 700007. In this regard certificate issued by land lord\nShri Santosh Kumar Soni (CIT(A) PBP-101-102) and bill of Rent (CIT(A)\nPBP-99-100) issued to lender company by land lord is enclosed.\n\n(iv) The existence of said place is further evident from copy of bill issued for\nelectricity

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)

2). Section 246 covers many cases including orders of assessment, reassessment or recomputation and an order imposing a penalty under section 271 and other provisions. In its turn, section 253

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

2)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, the arguments with regard to non applicability of \nsection 41(1) are not found to be relevant.\nIn the reply the appellant stated during the appellate proceedings dated \n19.07.2024 that the total amount of Rs.16,50,00,000/- was received by M/s Nav \nBharat Nirman Co. (JV) as loan and the same

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

ARUN BHARDWAJ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

253 ITR 798 (SC) submitted that the Apex Court have again reiterated that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction and held that advancing of substantial justice should be of prime importance. The ld. A/R, therefore, prayed that looking to the above facts and circumstances and settled legal position, the delay of 21 days caused may kindly

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) Act of 2009. However, Explanation 3 does not and cannot\noverride the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of section 147.\nAn Explanation to a statutory provision is intended to explain to contents and cannot be\nconstrued to override it or render the substance and core nugatory, Section 147 has this effect\nthat

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

section 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, Circle-2, Jaipur. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 2 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax grossly erred in passing an order

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

reassessment proceedings. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Id. AO in making addition of Rs. 83,74,399/- under clause (i) of Explanation 1 of section 115JB while computing the book profits u/s 115JB of the Act. The action

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

RAJKUMAR ASNANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

253 ITR 745 (Delhi).para 5 & 6, is reproduced below:-\n\"What would constitute reasonable cause cannot be laid down with precision. It would depend\nupon factual background and the scope for extremely limited and unless the conclusions are\nperverse based on conjectures or surmises and/ or have been arrived at without consideration of\nrelevant material and/or have been arrived

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

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)

2. 17.09.2018 20.09.2018 3. 29.09.2018 27.09.2018 4. 03.10.2018 07.10.2018 5. 10.10.2018 12.10.2018 6. 19.10.2018 24.10.2018 7. 05.11.2018 11.11.2018 8. 12.11.2018 13.11.2018 4.6 It is seen that AO during the scrutiny assessment issued the letter dated 12/09/2018 whereby appellant was asked to submit the details through e-filing which also included the demat account for F.Y. 2015-16, details of work

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

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

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

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