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

section 153A of the Act. Thus the said judgment is inapplicable under the facts of the present case. Another judgment cited by ld. D/R is in the case of Harshvardhan Johari vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com 449 (Jaipur-Trib) wherein it was held that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was not issued though the time

SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

41,778/- on account of mismatch in the share trading turnover. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 21st June, 2018 has levied the penalty under section 271AAB

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

41 ITR 465 and Mumbai ITAT Bench in the case of Sandhya Gadkari Sharma vs. DCIT (2016) 142 DTR 129 have also followed the decision. All these decision imposed a duty upon the Learned Assessing Officer for following the due procedure in the course of levy of penalty by issuing correct and relevant show cause notices. These decisions have laid

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

41,611/- which was offered to tax by the assessee in the return of income more than the computation of interest in the statement of affairs. The AO has made addition in respect of assessment years 2012-13 to 14-15 on account of less interest shown in the return of income in comparison to the statement of affairs whereas

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

41,611/- which was offered to tax by the assessee in the return of income more than the computation of interest in the statement of affairs. The AO has made addition in respect of assessment years 2012-13 to 14-15 on account of less interest shown in the return of income in comparison to the statement of affairs whereas

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

41,611/- which was offered to tax by the assessee in the return of income more than the computation of interest in the statement of affairs. The AO has made addition in respect of assessment years 2012-13 to 14-15 on account of less interest shown in the return of income in comparison to the statement of affairs whereas

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

41,611/- which was offered to tax by the assessee in the return of income more than the computation of interest in the statement of affairs. The AO has made addition in respect of assessment years 2012-13 to 14-15 on account of less interest shown in the return of income in comparison to the statement of affairs whereas

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

41,611/- which was offered to tax by the assessee in the return of income more than the computation of interest in the statement of affairs. The AO has made addition in respect of assessment years 2012-13 to 14-15 on account of less interest shown in the return of income in comparison to the statement of affairs whereas

SHRI RAM DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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

GHANSHYAM TAK,NAYA GHAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

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

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has\nescaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the\nproceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been\nincluded in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148.]\n[Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

4 years from the end of the assessment year. Further, reassessment proceedings were initiated by the AO on the premise that the assessee has not disclosed the purchase consider of the alleged land, however, it is pertinent to note that the assessee did not purchase any land as it remained with M/s Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. and there

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act—by invoking Section 150 and relying on CBDT Instruction No. 1/2023— is ex-facie without jurisdiction, contrary to binding judicial precedent, and violative of the appellate framework under Sections 250/251 of the Act. 4. It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal, in exercise of its plenary powers under Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act—by invoking Section 150 and relying on CBDT Instruction No. 1/2023— is ex-facie without jurisdiction, contrary to binding judicial precedent, and violative of the appellate framework under Sections 250/251 of the Act. 4. It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal, in exercise of its plenary powers under Section

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

POOJASHISH INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

41(1) amounting to Rs. 5,000,00/- and an amount of Rs. 73,50,000/- was brought to tax as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act in respect of share capital and unsecured loan received by the assessee during the year. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before