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

45,080x49.28%) and the assessee company has merely invested a sum of Rs. 5,18,00,000/- in order to get shareholding cumulatively of 49.28% in both the companies. These transactions obviously attract the provisions of section 56(2)(viia) of the I.T. Act which is reproduced as under :- “ Income from other sources. 56(2) In particular, and without prejudice

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections of 153C of the Act and therefore consequential order passed u/s 147 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 1.4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the action of ld. AO in reopening the assessment, beyond the specified time line. Thus, the reassessment proceedings initiated is time barred and entire

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nwas carried out on 13.06.2019 at the various premises of Dewan Group.\n\n14\nITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025\nDCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others\nAssessment in the case of assessee was completed u/s 153A of the I.T. Act,\n1961

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

45 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (supra) while dealing with the issue of violation of principles of natural justice for not providing the opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied on by the AO has held in para 6 to 9 as under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

45 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (supra) while dealing with the issue of violation of principles of natural justice for not providing the opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied on by the AO has held in para 6 to 9 as under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

45 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (supra) while dealing with the issue of violation of principles of natural justice for not providing the opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied on by the AO has held in para 6 to 9 as under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

45 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (supra) while dealing with the issue of violation of principles of natural justice for not providing the opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied on by the AO has held in para 6 to 9 as under

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

45 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (supra) while dealing with the issue of violation of principles of natural justice for not providing the opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied on by the AO has held in para 6 to 9 as under

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

45 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (supra) while dealing with the issue of violation of principles of natural justice for not providing the opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied on by the AO has held in para 6 to 9 as under

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

45 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (supra) while dealing with the issue of violation of principles of natural justice for not providing the opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied on by the AO has held in para 6 to 9 as under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

45 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (supra) while dealing with the issue of violation of principles of natural justice for not providing the opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied on by the AO has held in para 6 to 9 as under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

45 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (supra) while dealing with the issue of violation of principles of natural justice for not providing the opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied on by the AO has held in para 6 to 9 as under

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)

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

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)

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

reassess total income for entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. In respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments no addition can be made by Assessing Officer in absence of any incriminating material found during course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A. Completed/unabated assessments can be reopened by Assessing Officer in exercise

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)

45 Shri Vimal Chand Surana HUF "7.2 Amendment made by the Amending Act, 1989, to reintroduce the expression 'reason to believe' in section 147.—A number of representations were received against the omission of the words 'reason to believe' from section 147 and their substitution by the 'opinion' of the Assessing Officer. It was pointed out that the meaning

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

reassessment resulting into the demand or proceedings of penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

reassessment resulting into the demand or proceedings of penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that