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)

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate.” What is clear from this is that Section 153A

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

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

reassessment, if any, relating to\nany assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in\nthis sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132\nor making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate.\"\nWhat is clear from this is that Section 153A

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

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

reassessment, if any, relating to\nany assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in\nthis sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132\nor making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate.\"\nWhat is clear from this is that Section 153A

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)

reassessment pending on date of initiation of search within period of six assessment years specified under section 153A will also not absolve assessee from his liability to submit returns as provided under section 1534(1)(a)-Held, yes [Paras 5 & 6) [In favour of revenue] (v) The head note in the case of Canara Housing Development Co. Vs DCIT

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)

reassessment pending on date of initiation of search within period of six assessment years specified under section 153A will also not absolve assessee from his liability to submit returns as provided under section 1534(1)(a)-Held, yes [Paras 5 & 6) [In favour of revenue] (v) The head note in the case of Canara Housing Development Co. Vs DCIT

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)

reassessment pending on date of initiation of search within period of six assessment years specified under section 153A will also not absolve assessee from his liability to submit returns as provided under section 1534(1)(a)-Held, yes [Paras 5 & 6) [In favour of revenue] (v) The head note in the case of Canara Housing Development Co. Vs DCIT

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)

section 147, therefore, cannot be sustained. As the error here is one of jurisdiction it is not necessary for the assessee to have recourse to the remedies by way of appeal, revision, etc. It is well settled that when a jurisdictional error is brought to the notice of this court such errors are capable of being corrected by this court

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

49-B, KGN Bagh, Niwaru Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AJWPC8030B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L.Poddar, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs Alka Gautam, CIT-DR a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing 24/06/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

Reassessment pursuant to material found in search can be done through recourse to section 153C only and not by invoking the provisions of section 147/148. 1.12. The provisions of section 153C are over-riding in nature and contain non obstante clause for sections 139,147,148,149,151 and 153. 1.13. Section 147 and 153C are not interchangeable

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

reassessment is to be done in two different stages challenging the reasons of reopening and (i) challenging the assessment order. Assessee's challenge to the order of the assessing officer rejecting the objection against the reasons of reopening and assessce's challenge to the assessment order are two separate proceedings. Assessee cannot challenge order of the assessing officer disposing objections

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)

49[but before the date on which the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) 25 Shri Ghanshyam Tak, Ajmer. Bill, 2016 receives the assent of the President50], the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him,— (a) a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified

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)

49[but before the date on which the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016 receives the assent of the President50], the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him,— (a) a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified 24 R.P. Wood Products

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

49 of PB. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that Ld. CIT(E), Jaipur has traveled\nbeyond the scope of impugned show cause notice issued on 03.03.2023 which is not\njustified.\n17.\nIt is further submitted that while passing Impugned Order, the Ld. CIT(E), Jaipur\nhas also travelled beyond the impugned reference also, which alleges only violation of\nSection

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. YASHWANT KUMAR SHARMA, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 210/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer cuke Vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma F-108, Industrial Area, Makhupura Parbatpura, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASWPS 3791 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. No. 04/JP/2023 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 210/JP/2023) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2020-21 Yashwant Kumar Sharma

49[but before the date on which the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016 receives the assent of the President50], the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him,— (a) a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if such assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1,30,00,385/-which is chargeable to tax has escaped from assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassessment - Assessee filed a fresh\nreturn and paid differential tax and interest - Assessment was completed with no\naddition to disclosed income - However, Revenue imposed a penalty under\nSection 271(1)(c), alleging concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income - First Appellate Authority cancelled penalty due to lack of\nestablished concealment of income - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassessment - Assessee filed a fresh\nreturn and paid differential tax and interest - Assessment was completed with no\naddition to disclosed income - However, Revenue imposed a penalty under\nSection 271(1)(c), alleging concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income - First Appellate Authority cancelled penalty due to lack of\nestablished concealment of income - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

49 shall be cost of acquisition of asset to previous owner or fair market value (FMV) of asset as on 1-4-1981 at option of assessee provided under provisions of section 55(2)(ii)(b) - Held, yes [Paras 21825] [In favour of assessee)" We therefore request the Hon'ble Bench to kindly accept the cost of Acquisition

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassessment - Assessee filed a fresh\nreturn and paid differential tax and interest - Assessment was completed with no\naddition to disclosed income - However, Revenue imposed a penalty under\nSection 271(1)(c), alleging concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income - First Appellate Authority cancelled penalty due to lack of\nestablished concealment of income - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal