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

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

4) or in the notices 148, the returns were\r\nindeed non-est Assessing Officer even though they assessment.\r\nThere is yet another aspect of the matter. The requirement of making the claim for\r\ndeduction in a return of income filed by the assessee can be seen as a statutory\r\nprecondition for claiming the benefit of deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

255 (Delhi) (Mag.)/[2011] 335 ITR 259 (Delhi)/[2011] 244 CTR 51 (Delhi)[08-04-2011]\nSome of the arguments made on behalf of the assesse as noted in the judgement are as under:-\n\"It was also argued that the legislative intent in connection with section 271 of the Act is further fortified from the various Explanations provided

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

255 (Delhi) (Mag.)/[2011] 335 ITR 259 (Delhi)/[2011] 244 CTR 51 (Delhi)[08-04-20111 Some of the arguments made on behalf of the assesse as noted in the judgement are as under:- "It was also argued that the legislative intent in connection with section 271 of the Act is further fortified from the various Explanations provided

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment notice under section 148 and order disposing objections were to\nbe quashed - Held, yes [Paras 14 and 15][In favour of assesse]\n\n[2024] 168 taxmann.com 219 (Delhi - Trib.) Archit Gupta v. ACIT*\n\nSection 10(38), read with section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains\nIncome arising from transfer of long term securities (Penny

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

255 (Delhi) (Mag.)/[2011] 335 ITR 259\n(Delhi)/[2011] 244 CTR 51 (Delhi)[08-04-20111\nSome of the arguments made on behalf of the assesse as noted in the judgement\nare as under:-\n\"It was also argued that the legislative intent in connection with section 271 of the\nAct is further fortified from the various Explanations provided

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAILASH CHAND HIRAWAT , JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1175/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, बनाम Sh. Kailash Chand Hirawat Central Circle-4, VS. 9, Narain Singh Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAKPH9224R निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Rohan Sogani, C.A. राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR, Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR सुनवाई क

reassesses the 'total income'. It is not obligatory on the AO to make assessment for all the years, the earlier orders passed may be accepted. But once there is incriminating material seized or requisitioned belonging or relatable to the person other than on whom search was conducted, Section 153C is to be resorted to. 40. In view of above discussion

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

reassessment.\nAs per section 292BB of the Act where the notice was not served at all\neven those cases are statutorily deemed to be compliant with law that\nthe required notice under any provision of this Act, which is required to\nbe served upon him, has been duly served upon him in time in\naccordance with the provisions of this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

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

255 (Rajasthan)[19-03-2024] as under:-\n23. The reasons supplied in case in hand for initiation of proceedings under Section\n147/148 are based on the incriminating material and documents including Pen Drives\nseized during the search carried out of the Manihar Group and the statements recorded\nduring proceedings. From the information received the AO noticed that the loan\nadvanced

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

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

255 (Rajasthan)[19-03-2024] as under:-\n23. The reasons supplied in case in hand for initiation of proceedings under Section\n147/148 are based on the incriminating material and documents including Pen Drives\nseized during the search carried out of the Manihar Group and the statements recorded\nduring proceedings. From the information received the AO noticed that the loan\nadvanced

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

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

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

255 (Rajasthan)[19-03-2024] as under:-\n\n23. The reasons supplied in case in hand for initiation of proceedings under Section\n147/148 are based on the incriminating material and documents including Pen Drives\nseized during the search carried out of the Manihar Group and the statements recorded\nduring proceedings. From the information received the AO noticed that the loan

MO. SHARIPH KURESHI,SIKAR vs. ITO WARD-4 SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section even though said issue did not find mention in the reasons recorded and the notice issued under s. 148. Since there was confusion prevailing with regard to the powers of the AO to assess or reassess on the issues for which no reasons were recorded, Expln. 3 came to be inserted as 7 Mo. Shariph Kureshi, Sikar. clarificatory

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR vs. GIRRAJ PEASAD SODHANI, JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed being not maintainable

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

4. Vide impugned order, the assessment order was set aside on the ground that the assessment order u/s 147 of the Act did not survive in view of decision by our own Hon’ble High Court in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2024) 161 taxmann.com 255 (Rajasthan), D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019. In nut-shell

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

255 Taxman 152 (SC) (paper book pg. no.\n192-195), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as below:\n“13) ... However, a bare perusal of notice dated 09.03.2004 which was issued in the\noriginal assessment proceedings under Section 143 makes it clear that the point on\nwhich the re-assessment proceedings were initiated, was well considered in the\noriginal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. At the very outset, we find that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Jaipur in the assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2013-14 in ITA No. 960/JP/2025 dated 22.08.2025 wherein on the similar

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE vs. SHWETA CHORDIA, C-SCHEME JAIPUR

10. As a result, finding no merit in these appeals filed by the department,

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

255 (Rajasthan), D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019. Learned CIT(A) has held that as per decision in the above cited case, notices u/s 148 of the Act was quashed and the assessment orders had become ineffective. Hence, these two appeals by the department. 4. Learned DR for the appellant has submitted that notices under section 148 were correctly issued