DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

reassess the total income for such years. However as per second proviso, only those assessments will abate which are pending on the date of search. Thus the assessment not pending on the date of search will not abate and assessment for such non pending years will be only on the basis of incriminating material found during search in respect

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SUPREME POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the results the appeal of the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 189/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Supreme Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 137-138, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 5773 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की ता

reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 8 153. ………………….. 30. The argument that by enactment of Section 153A to 153D has not eclipsed Section 148 does not enhance the case of respondent to initiate the proceedings under Section 148. On fulfillment of two conditions for invoking Section 153C the proceeding in accordance with Section 153A are to be initiated

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

ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

reassessment [or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in which order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260

ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E) , JAIPUR

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

reassessment [or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be],\nsuch effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in\nwhich order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. UDAI BUILDHOME PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1399, 1400, 1401 & 1486/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur बनाम Vs. M/s Udai Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. 302, Golden Sunrise Apartment, Lajpat Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCU 5068 J अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: प्रत्यर्थी / Respond

260 (Delhi) also hold that in order to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act the documents seized must be incriminating and must relate to each of the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened. Since the satisfaction note forms the basis for initiating the proceedings under Section

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. UDAI BUILDHOME PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1399, 1400, 1401 & 1486/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Asstt. Commissioner of Income बनाम M/s Udai Buildhome Pvt. Tax, Vs. Ltd. 302, Golden Sunrise Central Circle-02, Jaipur Apartment, Lajpat Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCU 5068 J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee

260 (Delhi) also hold that in order to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act the documents seized must be incriminating and must relate to each of the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened. Since the satisfaction note forms the basis for initiating the proceedings under Section

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

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

260 wherein it was observed :-\n\"Now the Act does not give any power of dismissal But it is axiomatic that no court or\ntribunal is supposed to continue a proceeding before it when the party who has moved it\nhas not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal therefore, is an inherent\npower which every tribunal possesses...\"\n5.3

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

260\n20,222,880\n20,453,140\n2015-16\n63,204\n8,439,944\n8,503,148\n2016-17\n9,391,768\n16,999,971\n26,391,739\n2017-18\n39,187,577\n21,365,480\n60,553,057\n2018-19\n23,948,071\n18,345,025\n42,293,096\nTotal\n72,820,880\n85,373,300\n158

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

260/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, on allegation of\ninterest/commission payment in respect of commission payment\ntransactions found noted in Excel sheet (as stated in ground above), which\ndid not pertain to assessee. It is therefore prayed that addition made on\nthe basis of sheet, which itself was not pertaining to assessee, is not in\naccordance with

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

reassessment proceedings so initiated on borrowed\nsatisfaction and completed without disposing off objections raised by\nassessee is against the settled legal position and order so passed\ndeserves to be set aside.\n1.2\nOn the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,\nId.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the observations of Id.AO regarding not\nallowing the assessee

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

260/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, on allegation of\ninterest/commission payment in respect of commission payment\ntransactions found noted in Excel sheet (as stated in ground above), which\ndid not pertain to assessee. It is therefore prayed that addition made on\nthe basis of sheet, which itself was not pertaining to assessee, is not in\naccordance with

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

reassessment proceedings so initiated on borrowed\nsatisfaction and completed without disposing off objections raised by\nassessee is against the settled legal position and order so passed\ndeserves to be set aside.\n1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,\nId.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the observations of Id.AO regarding not\nallowing the assessee

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

260/- u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, on allegation of\ninterest/commission payment in respect of commission payment\ntransactions found noted in Excel sheet (as stated in ground above), which\ndid not pertain to assessee. It is therefore prayed that addition made on\nthe basis of sheet, which itself was not pertaining to assessee, is not in\naccordance with

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

260/-,\n38,66,010/- and 46,44,500/- respectively. The huge profits shown by the\nlender proves its credit worthiness beyond any doubt.\n\n(f) The copy of Audited Financial Statements of lender company along\nwith Directors Report for FY 2013-14 (CIT(A) PBP-75-90) is enclosed to\nfurther strengthen the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness

J.K.V. STONEX,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KISHANGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 143(1) had been issued In the case of Raymond Woolen Mills 236 ITR 34 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India held that it is only to be seen whether there was a prima facie case for reopening or not, sufficiency of reasons not to be seen. I find that the facts of the case laws relied upon

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

260 (Delhi) also hold that in order to justify the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153C of the Act the documents seized must be incriminating and must relate to each of the AYs whose assessments are sought to be reopened. Since the satisfaction note forms the basis for initiating the proceedings under Section