RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment under Section 147/148. 8. Set-Off of Unabsorbed Depreciation & MAT Credit - Not Admissible under Section 115BBE From AY 2017-18 onward, as per amended Section 115BBE(2), no deduction or set-off of any loss (including unabsorbed depreciation or MAT credit) is permissible against income deemed under Sections 68

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds raised by the assessee the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below: “6. Decision: 6.1 I have gone through the order passed by the AO, submissions of the appellant

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds raised by the assessee the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below: “6. Decision: 6.1 I have gone through the order passed by the AO, submissions of the appellant

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassessment on the total income as assessed under section 143(1)or 143(3)of the IT Act.The common facts and disputes running through all the assessments framed under section 153A are that the AO proposed to make the addition under section 68

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassessment on the total income as assessed under section 143(1)or 143(3)of the IT Act.The common facts and disputes running through all the assessments framed under section 153A are that the AO proposed to make the addition under section 68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

reassessment on the total income as assessed under section 143(1)or 143(3)of the IT Act.The common facts and disputes running through all the assessments framed under section 153A are that the AO proposed to make the addition under section 68

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassessment on the total income as assessed under section 143(1)or 143(3)of the IT Act.The common facts and disputes running through all the assessments framed under section 153A are that the AO proposed to make the addition under section 68

SHRI RAJESH CHACHWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68 of the Act. The reliance placed by the assessee on the decisions are as under :- Mehul V. Vyas vs. Income Tax Officer 164 ITR 296 Income Tax Officer vs. Kamal Kumar Mishra 143 ITD 686 (Lucknow) 4 Shri Rajesh Chachwani, Jaiupr. Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that the income surrendered by the assessee is income from other sources

KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

reassessment was not justified } In case of Haryana Acrylic\nManufacturing Co. v. CIT [2008] 175 Taxman 262 (Delhi) it was held by the\nHon'ble Delhi High Court that notice under section 148, giving reason that it had\ncome to his notice that assessee had taken accommodation entries from 'H' during\nrelevant year when assessee, in course of original assessment

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)

reassessment, the AO identified unexplained share application money amounting to ₹90,00,385/- under Section 68 of the Act. 2. Accommodation

PADMAVATI AGRICO (INDIA) PVT LTD,AJMER vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 1, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment was not justified} In case of Haryana Acrylic Manufacturing Co. v. CIT [2008] 175 Taxman 262 (Delhi) it was held by the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court that notice under section 148, giving reason that it had come to his notice that assessee had taken accommodation entries from 'H' during relevant year when assessee, in course of original assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

reassessment proceedings\nu/s.147?\n3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT (A) was justified in ignoring the facts that credible\ninformation\nregarding accommodation entry is available on record?\n4. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter,\nadd or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

reassessment proceedings\nu/s.147?\n3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT (A) was justified in ignoring the facts that credible information\nregarding accommodation entry is available on record?\n4. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter,\nadd or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

reassessment proceedings\nu/s.147?\n3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT (A) was justified in ignoring the facts that credible information\nregarding accommodation entry is available on record?\n4. The appellant craves leave or reserves right to amend, modify, alter,\nadd or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating

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

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating

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

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating