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

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

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

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

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

269\n367-373\nNA\nNA\n42\nHon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in Maliha Syeda\nv. ITO (2025) 2 TMI 937\n374-379\nNA\nNA\n05\nHon'ble ITAT, Chennai Bench in Ganesan Kannan\nv. ITO (ITA: 698/Chny/2024\n380-399\nNA\nNA\nINDEX-III\nSNo.\nParticulars\nPage\n44.\nMisc. Application for taking additional documents on record.\n400\n45.\nCopy of satisfaction

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)

269 SS Any loan or deposit or specified sum "taken or accepted from" or "taken or accepted by" the following entities - • The government • Any banking company, post office savings bank or co-operative bank • Any corporation established by a Central, State or Provincial Act • Any government company as defined in clause (45) of section 2 of the Companies

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

269 (MP) Income-Cash credit-Share\napplication money-Assessee has duly established the identity and source of credits—Additions\nnot sustainable.\n(vi) CIT_v/s_Arunanda Textiles (P) Ltd., 333 ITR 116 (Karnataka) Share application\nmoney-Assessee able to identify the shareholders—It is not for the assessee-company to\nestablish but it is for the Department to enquire with

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

sections 147 and 148 could not be rejected. [Para 11]\nIn the light of the above, the writ petition was to be dismissed. [Para 12]\nITA NO.616/JPR/2024\nTIJARIA POLYPIPES LTD VS DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR\n1. In the judgement in the case of Shalimar Buildcon (P) Ltd. vs. ITO(2011) 128\nITD 396: ITAT, Jaipur 'B' Bench, Hon'ble ITAT

FARMAN KHAN,CHAKSU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessed u/s 147 /144B vide order dated 27.03.2023, by the Faceless Assessing officer (FAO) at the Returned Income itself.In other words, all transactionswere found disclosed and the explanations were accepted, and so no unaccounted income /Black money or evasion of tax was found by the FAO.A copy of the assessment order A.Y. 2018-19 is enclosed (As Annexure

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

reassessment proceedings u/s 153C, after recording satisfaction note by assessing officer on receipt of such information. In the given case it is mentioned that satisfaction note was drawn on 12.12.2019 and notice u/s 153A was issued on 07.11.2019 before recording satisfaction note. It is submitted that both the facts are wrongly mentioned and bad in law. iv) That reference

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

reassessment proceedings u/s 153C, after recording satisfaction note by assessing officer on receipt of such information. In the given case it is mentioned that satisfaction note was drawn on 12.12.2019 and notice u/s 153A was issued on 07.11.2019 before recording satisfaction note. It is submitted that both the facts are wrongly mentioned and bad in law. iv) That reference

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

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassess the income, all the consequent proceedings were null and void and it was not a case of irregularity. Therefore, Section 292B of the Act had no application. Thus, it is submitted that the defect in the assessment order cannot be cured by relying on section 292B of the Act as it is not a procedural defect rather a substantive

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. AMAR PRATAP STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S

reassessment proceedings initiated by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.” Since, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee were head together disposed off by this common order. 4. The brief facts as culled out from the records is that the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income

M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.,VIDYUT BHAWAN, JAN PATH, JYOTI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, , JAIPUR

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

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

reassessment proceedings ,the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) dt.03.10.2019requiring the assessee to justify the write-off of Rs.200 crore due from Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited in its books of account as bad debts. He further required the assessee to provide proof of including this amount in computing the income for earlier years.In response to same, assessee filed

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

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

reassessment cannot be verified. Subject to these observations Shri Ambika Garments vs. ACIT the peak credit as worked out by the assessee at Rs. 36,89,310/- is held as undisclosed income for this year. (iii)………… In the above case the assessment for the AY 2001-02 was done however which was quashed by the honourable Tribunal. Even then

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

reassessment cannot be verified. Subject to these observations Shri Ambika Garments vs. ACIT the peak credit as worked out by the assessee at Rs. 36,89,310/- is held as undisclosed income for this year. (iii)………… In the above case the assessment for the AY 2001-02 was done however which was quashed by the honourable Tribunal. Even then