SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

58, Cosmo Colony, Vaishali Circle-01, Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACRPT2364B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 17/07/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

reassessment under Sections 139,147,148,149,151 & 153. " In view of the above discussion, the assessment completed u/s 144 deserves to be quashed. The order of the Learned CIT(A) also deserved to be quashed on this ground. Additional Ground No.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned

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)

4 The ld. Assessing Officer (herein after referred to as the “ld. AO”) completed the assessments u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act by making various additions after invoking the provisions of section 145(3) and by applying the GP rate. Aggrieved of the additions made by ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A), who decided the legal

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)

4 The ld. Assessing Officer (herein after referred to as the “ld. AO”) completed the assessments u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act by making various additions after invoking the provisions of section 145(3) and by applying the GP rate. Aggrieved of the additions made by ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A), who decided the legal

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)

4 The ld. Assessing Officer (herein after referred to as the “ld. AO”) completed the assessments u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act by making various additions after invoking the provisions of section 145(3) and by applying the GP rate. Aggrieved of the additions made by ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A), who decided the legal

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)

4 of the appeal.” A similar view was taken by the Visakhapatnam Bench of this Tribunal in case of G. Koteswara Rao vs. DCIT (supra) in para 11 to 17 as under:- “11. A careful study of section 153A to 153C and also the circular issued by the CBDT explaining the procedure of assessment in search cases, it shows that

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

58,057/-. The assessee has\ndeclared total revenue receipt from the sale of property to Shri\nRajendra Kumar Kedia. Perusal of sale deed, the Id. AO noted that\nthe sub-registrar has adopted the sale consideration of property\nsold at Rs. 2,77,87,868/-. However, the assessee has shown sale\nconsideration of property

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)

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 it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

reassessment made pursuant to notice under section 153A is not de novo assessment, therefore, there is no merit in the ground to make a new claim of deduction or allowance during assessment/reassessment under section 153A as such where admittedly the regular assessments are shown as completed assessment on the date of initiation of action under section 132." In the above

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment made pursuant to notice under section 153A is not de novo assessment, therefore, there is no merit in the ground to make a new claim of deduction or allowance during assessment/reassessment under section 153A as such where admittedly the regular assessments are shown as completed assessment on the date of initiation of action under section 132." In the above

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

reassessment made pursuant to notice under section 153A is not de novo assessment, therefore, there is no merit in the ground to make a new claim of deduction or allowance during assessment/reassessment under section 153A as such where admittedly the regular assessments are shown as completed assessment on the date of initiation of action under section 132." In the above

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment made pursuant to notice under section 153A is not de novo assessment, therefore, there is no merit in the ground to make a new claim of deduction or allowance during assessment/reassessment under section 153A as such where admittedly the regular assessments are shown as completed assessment on the date of initiation of action under section 132." In the above

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

reassessment made pursuant to notice under section 153A is not de novo assessment, therefore, there is no merit in the ground to make a new claim of deduction or allowance during assessment/reassessment under section 153A as such where admittedly the regular assessments are shown as completed assessment on the date of initiation of action under section 132." In the above

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

reassessment made pursuant to notice under section 153A is not de novo assessment, therefore, there is no merit in the ground to make a new claim of deduction or allowance during assessment/reassessment under section 153A as such where admittedly the regular assessments are shown as completed assessment on the date of initiation of action under section 132." In the above

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued........” Hence, the there was relevant and cogent material before the Ld. A.O before re- opening the assessement. The contention of the appellant in this regard is rejected. In view of the facts and the circumstances as narrated above No. 1,2,3,6 & 7 are hereby dismissed. Ground

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

reassessment proceedings and in ignoring the fact that the income as per the\nReturn was Rs.97,04,424/- on the pretext that the Return of income was not filed\nwithing the time given in the notice u/s.148 dated 30.03.2021.\n3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the\nassessee company is engaged in the business

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

reassessment proceedings and in ignoring the fact that the income as per the\nReturn was Rs.97,04,424/- on the pretext that the Return of income was not filed\nwithing the time given in the notice u/s.148 dated 30.03.2021.\n3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the\nassessee company is engaged in the business

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)

4 of the appeal.” A similar view was taken by the Visakhapatnam Bench of this Tribunal in case of G. Koteswara Rao vs. DCIT (supra) in para 11 to 17 as under:- “11. A careful study of section 153A to 153C and also the circular issued by the CBDT explaining the procedure of assessment in search cases, it shows that