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

51,683 (24,916) 2015-16 2,92,349 2,72,340 20,009 2016-17 3,04,972 2,83,370 21,602 6 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. Thus it is clear from the details reproduced above that the computation of interest as shown in Form 26AS by the bankers may be based

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

51,683 (24,916) 2015-16 2,92,349 2,72,340 20,009 2016-17 3,04,972 2,83,370 21,602 6 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. Thus it is clear from the details reproduced above that the computation of interest as shown in Form 26AS by the bankers may be based

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

51,683 (24,916) 2015-16 2,92,349 2,72,340 20,009 2016-17 3,04,972 2,83,370 21,602 6 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. Thus it is clear from the details reproduced above that the computation of interest as shown in Form 26AS by the bankers may be based

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

51,683 (24,916) 2015-16 2,92,349 2,72,340 20,009 2016-17 3,04,972 2,83,370 21,602 6 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. Thus it is clear from the details reproduced above that the computation of interest as shown in Form 26AS by the bankers may be based

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

51,683 (24,916) 2015-16 2,92,349 2,72,340 20,009 2016-17 3,04,972 2,83,370 21,602 6 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. Thus it is clear from the details reproduced above that the computation of interest as shown in Form 26AS by the bankers may be based

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment is essentially the incriminating material disclosing undisclosed income which was not disclosed by the assessee. In the case in hand, the AO himself has not claimed any incriminating material found during the search and seizure in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this

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

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

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

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

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

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

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

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

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

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

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

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

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

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

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

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

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

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

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)

Section 147/148 of the Act, relying on the same judgment of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), CBDT Instruction No. 1/2023 (CLC 35-40), and the provisions of Section 150 of the Act. The assessee, while supporting the ultimate relief granted, is aggrieved by the directions given by the ld. CIT(A) in his order suggesting the AO initiate proceedings under Section 147/148

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)

Section 147/148 of the Act, relying on the same judgment of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), CBDT Instruction No. 1/2023 (CLC 35-40), and the provisions of Section 150 of the Act. The assessee, while supporting the ultimate relief granted, is aggrieved by the directions given by the ld. CIT(A) in his order suggesting the AO initiate proceedings under Section 147/148

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

51. Where any capital asset was on any previous occasion the subject of negotiations for its transfer, any advance or other money received and retained by the assessee in respect of such negotiations shall be deducted from the cost for which the asset was acquired or the written down value or the fair market value, as the case

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