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)

reassessments contemplated under section 153A. There is also no requirement under section 153A and other provisions requiring the Department to collect information and evidence for each and every year for six previous years under section 153A. Therefore, the argument of assessee that the information gathered either during pre-search enquiry or during the course of search cannot be made

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)

reassessments contemplated under section 153A. There is also no requirement under section 153A and other provisions requiring the Department to collect information and evidence for each and every year for six previous years under section 153A. Therefore, the argument of assessee that the information gathered either during pre-search enquiry or during the course of search cannot be made

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)

reassessments contemplated under section 153A. There is also no requirement under section 153A and other provisions requiring the Department to collect information and evidence for each and every year for six previous years under section 153A. Therefore, the argument of assessee that the information gathered either during pre-search enquiry or during the course of search cannot be made

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

281 (Raj.) has considered this issue of reassessment of income under section 153A in the absence of incriminating material. The Coordinate

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

281 (Raj.) has considered this issue of reassessment of income under section 153A in the absence of incriminating material. The Coordinate

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

281 (Raj.) has considered this issue of reassessment of income under section 153A in the absence of incriminating material. The Coordinate

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

281 (Raj.) has considered this issue of reassessment of income under section 153A in the absence of incriminating material. The Coordinate

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

281 (Raj.) has considered this issue of reassessment of income under section 153A in the absence of incriminating material. The Coordinate

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

281 (Raj.) has considered this issue of reassessment of income under section 153A in the absence of incriminating material. The Coordinate

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

281 (Raj.) has considered this issue of reassessment of income under section 153A in the absence of incriminating material. The Coordinate

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

reassessing the income which was the basis for issuing the notice under section 148 not other income could be assess. b) Ranbaxy lab Ltd Vs. CIT (2011), 57 DTR (Del) 281

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment and as it is lacking, this jurisdictional defect cannot be cured and thus 8 ITA 168/JP/2020_ M/s Girirajkripa Developers P ltd. Vs ITO assessment is liable to be quashed on this point. Notice under section 148 is a jurisdictional notice. Therefore, no service of notice under section 148 cannot be said to be a procedural defect and it cannot

GEMCO INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

reassess the total income, where search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A. Therefore, in our opinion, the assessing officer is not justified in reopening the assessment under section 147 and his order is illegal and arbitrary. d. In view of above decisions statement of learned AO that no material is handed over

BABU LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

281 “….. The requirement of assessment or reassessment under the said section has to be read in the context of sections

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

281 at para 11 of the order has held that where the assessment order show that no proper accounts were kept, it would not be justified to presume that assessee kept his accounts in the mercantile system. Income tax is normally paid on money actually received as income after deducting the allowable deductions. In the present case also the advance

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

281 at para 11 of the order has held that where the assessment order show that no proper accounts were kept, it would not be justified to presume that assessee kept his accounts in the mercantile system. Income tax is normally paid on money actually received as income after deducting the allowable deductions. In the present case also the advance

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

281 at para 11 of the order has held that where the assessment order show that no proper accounts were kept, it would not be justified to presume that assessee kept his accounts in the mercantile system. Income tax is normally paid on money actually received as income after deducting the allowable deductions. In the present case also the advance

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

281 at para 11 of the order has held that where the assessment order show that no proper accounts were kept, it would not be justified to presume that assessee kept his accounts in the mercantile system. Income tax is normally paid on money actually received as income after deducting the allowable deductions. In the present case also the advance

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. LAXMI NARAIN AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11

281 as well as decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573. The ld. AR has also relied upon the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal dated 27.12.2017 in case of M/s Gorbandh Marbles Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 605/JP/2017. Thus, the ld. AR has submitted that when