PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

548-555] alongwith relevant supporting\ndocuments.\n1.21. That the Id. PCIT vide its order dated 30.03.2024 passed u/s. 263 has\npartly accepted the submission of the assessee appellant to the extent of non-\napplicability of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) for\ndelay in deposit of ESI/PF, however, has held that the assessment order

BRIJ BIHARI AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 , JAIPUR

section 147/148 of the Act are\nnot applicable in such cases. No contrary decision has been brought to\nour notice. Accordingly, we hold that initiation of proceedings u/s\n147/148 by the AO to reassess the income is illegal being without\njurisdiction and consequently the reassessment order passed u/s 147\nr.w.s. 143(3) is also illegal and void abinitio

PHOOL CHAND,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

548 regarding investment in tubewell and others. In our considered opinion, for the purpose of carrying on the agricultural activity, tubowell and other expenses are for betterment of land and therefore, it will be considered a part of investment in the land and same is required to be accepted." 7.6 I have perusal the above case laws I find that

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SUMS EXIM PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result , ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

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

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous

SETH BADRI PRASAD UMMEDI DEVI PAROPKARI TRUST,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

548 made by the appellant are renewals of time deposits, which were deposited long back are not acceptable. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in respect of addition of Rs. 1094548 made by the assessing Officer in the order under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 13.12.2018 for the Asst. Year

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