ACIT, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD., 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

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

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

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

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

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 provides for appeals to the Appellate Tribunal against orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in regard to the matters mentioned therein. If there has been an appeal against the assessment or other order, the period of limitation for imposing

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

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

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)

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 done in F&O and form no 10DDB, computation

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 5 of Limitation Act in filling of appeal SHRI UPENDRAF KUMAR SONI VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA Hon'ble Sir(s), The humble assessee appellant applicant respectfully prays for the condonation of delay in the filling of appeal for the following reason 1. That the Id. CIT (Appeals) passed

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 5 of Limitation Act in filling of appeal SHRI UPENDRAF KUMAR SONI VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA Hon'ble Sir(s), The humble assessee appellant applicant respectfully prays for the condonation of delay in the filling of appeal for the following reason 1. That the Id. CIT (Appeals) passed

SIYARAM CITY CABS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITD WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment order as the same is passed against the principles of natural justice. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in, confirming the action of the Id. AO, in making addition of Rs.6,61,088/- u/s 40(a)(ia) to the income of the assessee. . The action

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

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)

5. As per the provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act, in specific cases where the Assessing Officer has in his possession evidence which reveals that the income escaping assessment, represented in the form of asset, amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty lakh rupees or more, notice can be issued beyond the period of three

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

5 ITO vs. Vinod Kumar Jharchur HUF the collector], shall not be made under this section unless the authority concerned has given notice to the assessee or the deductor [or the collector] of its intention so to do and has allowed the assessee or the deductor [or the collector] a reasonable opportunity of being heard". Thus

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

SIYARAM CITY CABS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITD WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the reassessment proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming