DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

reassessment can be made." 32 DCIT vs. M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd. CIT VS. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del) (HC) "Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under s. 1534 only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

270 taxman 15(SC) dated 16.09.2020 02. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not carrying out her duty of adjudicating the grounds on merit, and dismissing them only on a technical ground. 03. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

270 taxman 15(SC) dated 16.09.2020 02. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not carrying out her duty of adjudicating the grounds on merit, and dismissing them only on a technical ground. 03. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

270 taxman 15(SC) dated 16.09.2020 02. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not carrying out her duty of adjudicating the grounds on merit, and dismissing them only on a technical ground. 03. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

270 taxman 15(SC) dated 16.09.2020 02. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not carrying out her duty of adjudicating the grounds on merit, and dismissing them only on a technical ground. 03. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal

GUNMALA JAIN,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1262/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears :2019-20 Gunmala Jain, बनाम 28 Abhi Lash Nikunj, Kalyan Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2) Colony, Ajmer Road Kekri, Ajmer स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./ PAN/GIR No.: ABRPJ 4764E Ajmer अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assesseeby :Sh. Sunil Porwal, CA (Thr.V.C.) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary (Addl. CIT) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18/1

reassessed is greater than the income originally assessed, it qualifies as a case of underreporting of income 11 Gunmala Jain on this basis alone, and the fact that the assessee suo moto had withdrawn any claim of deduction in the return of income filed under Section 148 of the Act is of no consequence as per law for determining whether

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

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

Reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order: Further clause (6) sub clause (a) to sec 270A further defines UNDER-REPORTED INCOME, for the purpose of this Section Shall not Include- The amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or [the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

270 wherein in the context of whether provisions in respect of penalty for violation of provisions of section 139 shall be applicable where there is a violation of section 153C, read with section 153A in respect of filing return of income, it was held as under: "7. We have heard both the sides on this issue. The provisions of section

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)

270/- under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In this case information was received from the DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur that the assessee has given unaccounted loans in cash to various persons in F.Y. 2010-11. A search and seizure action under section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 was carried out in the case

SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

270 ITR 599 5. Addition u/s 68 :- That the learned AO has grossly erred both in law and facts invoking section 68 without jurisdiction and per-sea illegal because this section can be invoke where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for the any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation. 6. Explanation

SHRI SHYAM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

270 A of the Act for ‘underreporting of income’ pertaining to the same was also initiated. Subsequently penalty order was passed levying penalty u/s 270A of the Act on the total addition made to the income of the assessee of Rs.5,38,230/-, being 50% of the amount of tax payable thereon amounting to Rs.1,70,537/-. The same

SHRI SHYAM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

270 A of the Act for ‘underreporting of income’ pertaining to the same was also initiated. Subsequently penalty order was passed levying penalty u/s 270A of the Act on the total addition made to the income of the assessee of Rs.5,38,230/-, being 50% of the amount of tax payable thereon amounting to Rs.1,70,537/-. The same

SHRI GIRRAJ PRASAD GILARA HUF,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 148 and completed the reassessment in the first round. The procedure for reassessment proceedings has been prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO 259 ITR 19 (SC). In this case it is categorically held that the reasons recorded must be provided to the assessee and the objections as made

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

270/-.Notice u/s 143(2) of Act was\nissued on 29/09/2020, which wasduly served upon the assessee.\nThereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 21/02/2021\naskingdetails/explanations. In response to these notices, the assessee\nsubmitted requisite details/explanation, which have been examined as\nnoted by the ld. AO.\n6.2 During the course of search and seizure operations carried

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

270/- as against the returned income of\nRs.2,32,88,920/- is bad in law, unjustified and is liable to be deleted, and the\nassessment order is liable to be quashed.\n\nWritten Submissions with regard to CO 27/JPR/2025\n\n1. The appeal of the assessee was allowed by Ld.CIT(A) on technical ground but\nwhile allowing the appeal

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Us. In This Appeal The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

270/- was e-filed on 31.10.2017, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961[ here in after referred to as Act]. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notice U/s 143(2) was issued on 29.09.2018, which was duly served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 05.02.2019 and 03.05.2019 requiring

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.”

270/- and thereby the assessment was completed. 4. On culmination of the assessment proceedings, the ld. PCIT called for the records for examination. As is evident from the order of the ld. PCIT she has not commented on the issue for which the notice u/s. 148 was issued but she went on examining the other details which were called

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

270/-\nand agriculture income of Rs.34,750/-.\nAn information was received, by the Ld. AO, relating to purchase of\nimmovable property, by the appellant, during the year.\nThereafter, reasons were recorded and, after getting approval (PBP: 1\n5) from the Ld. PCIT – III, Jaipur on 29.03.2019, case of the appellant was re-\nopened u/s 147 of the Act. Accordingly, notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SHEENA MATHUR, JAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s ground of appeal is dismissed

270 wherein in the context of whether provisions in respect of penalty for violation of provisions of section 139 shall 6 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur Vs Smt. Sheena Mathur, Jaipur be applicable where there is a violation of section 153C, read with section 153A in respect of filing return of income, it was held as under