DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORTATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue

reassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 09.01.2014. The assessee challenged the validity of reopening of the AO before the ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 3. Before us, ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee vide its letter dated 17.09.2013 explained that in the course of assessment proceedings complete details of working of deduction

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

reassessment proceedings is not in accordance with law as notices u/s 148A and 148 as well as order u/s 148A(d) have been passed by JAO instead of FAO, which 19 SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL VS DCIT,CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR is not in accordance with specific provisions of statue. Thus order passed u/s 147 is bad in law and deserves

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 28. The correctness of the claim of the Assessee for the purpose of Section 14A read with Rule

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

548, Allahabad). The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwar Lal Mall V/S CIT 256 ITR 536 (Raj.) has held that "There is no provision for permitting the cross examination the persons whose statement were recorded during survey." In the case of Mahendra N. Chatterjee V/s Collector of Central Excise

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

548, Allahabad). The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwar Lal Mall V/S CIT 256 ITR 536 (Raj.) has held that "There is no provision for permitting the cross examination the persons whose statement were recorded during survey." In the case of Mahendra N. Chatterjee V/s Collector of Central Excise

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the persons/ members of the Maverick group, Jaipur on 22nd July 2015. In this group, in some cases department as well is assessee’s are in appeal against the order of CIT (A). The main grounds of appeals have been briefly mentioned

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the persons/ members of the Maverick group, Jaipur on 22nd July 2015. In this group, in some cases department as well is assessee’s are in appeal against the order of CIT (A). The main grounds of appeals have been briefly mentioned

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the persons/ members of the Maverick group, Jaipur on 22nd July 2015. In this group, in some cases department as well is assessee’s are in appeal against the order of CIT (A). The main grounds of appeals have been briefly mentioned

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the persons/ members of the Maverick group, Jaipur on 22nd July 2015. In this group, in some cases department as well is assessee’s are in appeal against the order of CIT (A). The main grounds of appeals have been briefly mentioned

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the persons/ members of the Maverick group, Jaipur on 22nd July 2015. In this group, in some cases department as well is assessee’s are in appeal against the order of CIT (A). The main grounds of appeals have been briefly mentioned

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the persons/ members of the Maverick group, Jaipur on 22nd July 2015. In this group, in some cases department as well is assessee’s are in appeal against the order of CIT (A). The main grounds of appeals have been briefly mentioned

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the persons/ members of the Maverick group, Jaipur on 22nd July 2015. In this group, in some cases department as well is assessee’s are in appeal against the order of CIT (A). The main grounds of appeals have been briefly mentioned

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the persons/ members of the Maverick group, Jaipur on 22nd July 2015. In this group, in some cases department as well is assessee’s are in appeal against the order of CIT (A). The main grounds of appeals have been briefly mentioned

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the persons/ members of the Maverick group, Jaipur on 22nd July 2015. In this group, in some cases department as well is assessee’s are in appeal against the order of CIT (A). The main grounds of appeals have been briefly mentioned

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

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

548-555] alongwith relevant supporting documents. 1.21. That the Id. PCIT vide its order dated 30.03.2024 passed u/s. 263 has partly accepted the submission of the assessee appellant to the extent of non- applicability of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) for delay in deposit of ESI/PF, however, has held that the assessment order

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