ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

37 taxmann.com 440 (Bangalore Trib.) [14-08-2013] 7. We have considered the rival submissions. As far as imposition of penalty on the income offered in the return of income by the Assessee is concerned, we are of the view that there cannot be any penalty on income which is declared in a return of income, on the facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

37 taxmann.com 440 (Bangalore\nTrib.) [14-08-2013]\n7. We have considered the rival submissions. As far as imposition of penalty on the income offered in the return of income by the Assessee is concerned, we are of the view that there cannot be any penalty on income which is declared in a return of income, on the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHRI RAJLAXMI DENIM, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148. Confirm the addition of ₹1,37,00,000/- under Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE. Reject plea

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

37 taxmann.com 440 (Bangalore\nTrib.) [14-08-2013]\n7. We have considered the rival submissions. As far as imposition of penalty on\nthe income offered in the return of income by the Assessee is concerned, we are of\nthe view that there cannot be any penalty on income which is declared in a return\nof income, on the facts

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

37(1) as inadmissible expenditure. The action of the AO to invoke section 69A is not sustainable as the said expenditure has been incurred in the course of the business of the appellant. Accordingly ground no. 04 & 08 raised by the appellant are hereby partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging payment against credit card bills and earned contract receipts without explaining their source. Notice under Section 148 was issued but returned unserved.", "held": "The Tribunal held that service of notice under Section 148 is a jurisdictional requirement and not a procedural one. Since the notice was not properly

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment cannot be declared invalid in the penalty proceedings’’. View taken by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the above judgment was indirectly affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, when it dismissed an SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgment in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra), specifically observing that there was no merits

LATE SHRI JITENDRA NAGAR THROUGH HIS L/R SMT. DEEPIKA NAGAR,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BARAN, BARAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Section 148-A(d) in respect of each of the assesses concerned.” Further, it directed the assessing officers to issue a notice under section 148 of the new regime “after following the procedure as required under Section 148-A.” Although this Court waived off the requirement of obtaining prior approval under Section 148A(a) and Section 148A

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

37 Shri Vimal Chand Surana HUF or reassessment proceedings relating to any assessment year falling within the period of the six assessment years mentioned above, may be pending. In such a case, the second proviso to sub section (1

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)

37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued

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)

37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued

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)

37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A(1) will have to be mandatorily issued

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

reassessment can be made." 7.5 Similar view point was expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Kabul Chawla vs. ACIT 380 ITR 573 (Del HC). The relevant observation of Hon’ble court could be seen in para 37 & 38 of order, same is reproduced below: Para 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A (1

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

reassessment can be made." 7.5 Similar view point was expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Kabul Chawla vs. ACIT 380 ITR 573 (Del HC). The relevant observation of Hon’ble court could be seen in para 37 & 38 of order, same is reproduced below: Para 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A (1

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

reassessment can be made." 7.5 Similar view point was expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Kabul Chawla vs. ACIT 380 ITR 573 (Del HC). The relevant observation of Hon’ble court could be seen in para 37 & 38 of order, same is reproduced below: Para 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A (1

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

reassessment can be made." 7.5 Similar view point was expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Kabul Chawla vs. ACIT 380 ITR 573 (Del HC). The relevant observation of Hon’ble court could be seen in para 37 & 38 of order, same is reproduced below: Para 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A (1

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

reassessment can be made." 7.5 Similar view point was expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Kabul Chawla vs. ACIT 380 ITR 573 (Del HC). The relevant observation of Hon’ble court could be seen in para 37 & 38 of order, same is reproduced below: Para 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A (1

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

reassessment can be made." 7.5 Similar view point was expressed by the Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Kabul Chawla vs. ACIT 380 ITR 573 (Del HC). The relevant observation of Hon’ble court could be seen in para 37 & 38 of order, same is reproduced below: Para 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A (1