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

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)

46 Shri Vimal Chand Surana HUF Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax [2000] 241 ITR 672 (Mad), wherein, it was observed as follows: "The pre-condition for the exercise of the power under section 147 in cases where power is exercised within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is the belief reasonably

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)

reassess the income of the respondent pursuant to such return'. On the facts of that case it was held that the Revenue had sufficiently discharged the onus by producing the affidavit of the process server. Under section 282(1) of the Act, service of notice may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof to the person to whom

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.

46,240/-, Closing balance for Bank account No.916020049304891 Axis Bank is Rs.46,39,881/-). In other words the transaction appearing in the bank account has not been disclosed by the assessee before the Department. As per information provided by by Dy. Commissioner of Income Central Circle, Ghaziabad the have received accomodation entires for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rs.35

BHASKAR CHOUHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIKAR

46,240/-, Closing balance for Bank account\nNo.916020049304891 Axis Bank is Rs.46,39,881/-). In other words\nthe transaction appearing in the bank account has not been\ndisclosed by the assessee before the Department. As per\ninformation provided by by Dy. Commissioner of Income Central\nCircle, Ghaziabad the have received accomodation entires for Rs.\n1,00,00,000/- (Rs.35

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment e. It is also apparent that the ld. JAO as well as AO seems to be not having any document in his possession except the screen shot otherwise the same would have been provided to the assessee for which so many demands were raised and hence there was no reason for the ld. AO to form belief that

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

reassess the income\nof the respondent pursuant to such return'. On the facts of that case it was held\nthat the Revenue had sufficiently discharged the onus by producing the affidavit\nof the process server.\nUnder section 282(1) of the Act, service of notice may be made by delivering or\ntransmitting a copy thereof to the person to whom

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

46,252 \n\n24,39,64,509 26,79,94,750 5,11,79,000 56,31,38,249 \n\nBased on this calculation again the assessee was asked to show cause as \nto why the aforementioned addition should not be made in his hand. The \nassessee submitted his reply which was considered by the ld. AO but was \nnot

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

reassessment, if any, for such assessment year has been \nmade.\nThese amendments have been brought into effect retrospectively from 1st June, \n2003.\"\n(emphasis supplied)\nAs per the CBDT Gircular also, in case of section 163C of the Act, assessments \nof the preceding six years as pending on the date on which books of account or \ndocuments or assets seized

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

46,252\n24,39,64,509\n26,79,94,750\n5,11,79,000\n56,31,38,249\nBased on this calculation again the assessee was asked to show cause as\nto why the aforementioned addition should not be made in his hand. The\nassessee submitted his reply which was considered by the ld. AO but was\nnot found tenable

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

46 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT 8. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing

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

46 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT 8. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing

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

46 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT 8. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing

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

46 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT 8. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing

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

46 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT 8. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing

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

46 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT 8. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing

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

46 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT 8. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing