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)

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act correctly allowed the deduction of bad debts written off. In letter filed objecting to reopening of assessment assessee also referred to CBDT Circular 12/2016 dt.30.05.2016 but AO in disposing the objections has not rebutted the contention of the assessee. Thus, there was no new material with the AO apart from what is already

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

vii) Padam Chand Pungliya ITA No. 112/JP/2018 (viii) Vimal Chand Surana ITA No. 304/JP/2018. (ix) RajendraKumar Jain dated 14.09.20. 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R relied on the order of the AO. He submitted that the penalty was rightly levied on account of unexplained cash, unexplained jewellery and unexplained valuables found at the premises of the assessee

VINITA BAJORIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act and in the Zuari Estate case, the assessee has not included certain transaction of property sale in its ITR whereas the assessee in question has duly declared the alleged transaction in her ITR and no discrepancy could be observed by the AO in the same during the entire assessment proceedings

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)

36 Taxmann.com 523. In the said case, the facts were that A search under Section 132(1) of the Act was conducted at various business premises of Suncity Alloys Group of Companies, Jodhpur, to which, the appellant firm belong and at the residence of directors/partners of various firms/companies on 20.02.2004. Several incriminating documents were recovered from the residential premises

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)

36 Taxmann.com 523. In the said case, the facts were that A search under Section 132(1) of the Act was conducted at various business premises of Suncity Alloys Group of Companies, Jodhpur, to which, the appellant firm belong and at the residence of directors/partners of various firms/companies on 20.02.2004. Several incriminating documents were recovered from the residential premises

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)

36 Taxmann.com 523. In the said case, the facts were that A search under Section 132(1) of the Act was conducted at various business premises of Suncity Alloys Group of Companies, Jodhpur, to which, the appellant firm belong and at the residence of directors/partners of various firms/companies on 20.02.2004. Several incriminating documents were recovered from the residential premises

MRS. RENU SEHGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

reassessment proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the circular by itself without any other material and investigation, could not afford any basis to the ITO for forming a reasonable belief that the appellant had not made a full and true disclosure of the relevant facts on which account the income of the appellant chargeable to tax had escaped assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

reassessment under Sections 139,147,148,149,151 & 153. " In view of the above discussion, the assessment completed u/s 144 deserves to be quashed. The order of the Learned CIT(A) also deserved to be quashed on this ground. Additional Ground No.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

reassess the income of the assessee depending upon the undisclosed income detected during the course of search and seizure. Therefore, the completed assessment can be disturbed by the Assessing Officer while making the assessment under section 153A only if there is incriminating material found during the search disclosing undisclosed income of the assessee. Otherwise the income as declared

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassess the income of the assessee depending upon the undisclosed income detected during the course of search and seizure. Therefore, the completed assessment can be disturbed by the Assessing Officer while making the assessment under section 153A only if there is incriminating material found during the search disclosing undisclosed income of the assessee. Otherwise the income as declared

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassess the income of the assessee depending upon the undisclosed income detected during the course of search and seizure. Therefore, the completed assessment can be disturbed by the Assessing Officer while making the assessment under section 153A only if there is incriminating material found during the search disclosing undisclosed income of the assessee. Otherwise the income as declared

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassess the income of the assessee depending upon the undisclosed income detected during the course of search and seizure. Therefore, the completed assessment can be disturbed by the Assessing Officer while making the assessment under section 153A only if there is incriminating material found during the search disclosing undisclosed income of the assessee. Otherwise the income as declared

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

reassess the income of the assessee depending upon the undisclosed income detected during the course of search and seizure. Therefore, the completed assessment can be disturbed by the Assessing Officer while making the assessment under section 153A only if there is incriminating material found during the search disclosing undisclosed income of the assessee. Otherwise the income as declared

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

reassess the income of the assessee depending upon the undisclosed income detected during the course of search and seizure. Therefore, the completed assessment can be disturbed by the AO while making the assessment under section 153A only if there is incriminating material found during the search disclosing undisclosed income of the assessee. Otherwise the income as declared by the assessee

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

reassess the income of the assessee depending upon the undisclosed income detected during the course of search and seizure. Therefore, the completed assessment can be disturbed by the AO while making the assessment under section 153A only if there is incriminating material found during the search disclosing undisclosed income of the assessee. Otherwise the income as declared by the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known