DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

reassessment proceedings under sections 147/48 of the Act. subject to\nfulfilment of the conditions mentioned in sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the\nRevenue cannot be left with no remedy. Therefore, even in case of block assessment\nunder section 153A and in case of unabated/completed assessment and in case no\nincriminating material is found during the search, the power

MILESTONE DEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment. Explanation-In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). The above Section 142A(2) clearly states that it is not necessary to reject the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the appellant before making reference to the Valuation Officer u/s 142A

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

reassess total income for entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. In respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments no addition can be made by Assessing Officer in absence of any incriminating material found during course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A. Completed/unabated assessments can be reopened by Assessing Officer in exercise

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)

reassessment under sections 147/148 of the Act has to be saved, otherwise the Revenue would be left without remedy." The assessment order and submissions of the appellant in the appeal and the remand report on the issue and the rejoinder reply of the appellant on the remand report, all have been duly and carefully considered. Neither in the assessment order

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)

reassessment under sections 147/148 of the Act has to be saved, otherwise the Revenue would be left without remedy." The assessment order and submissions of the appellant in the appeal and the remand report on the issue and the rejoinder reply of the appellant on the remand report, all have been duly and carefully considered. Neither in the assessment order

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 ₹90,00,385/- money amounting to under Section 68 of the Act. 4.2. Furthermore, commission expenditure of ₹3,25,010/- was deemed unexplained under Section 69C

SHUBHAM JAIN,TONK, RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - TONK, MAHA DEVALI, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging unexplained expenditure incurred for purchase of a commercial truck. The impugned assessment proceedings were initiated under Section 153C of the Act, which require the presence of incriminating material—found and seized Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. during search proceedings under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A— having direct nexus with the assessee

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging unexplained expenditure incurred for purchase of a commercial truck. The impugned assessment proceedings were initiated under Section 153C of the Act, which require the presence of incriminating material—found and seized Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. during search proceedings under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A— having direct nexus with the assessee

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging unexplained expenditure incurred for purchase of a commercial truck. The impugned assessment proceedings were initiated under Section 153C of the Act, which require the presence of incriminating material—found and seized Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. during search proceedings under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A— having direct nexus with the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

reassessment, the AO identified unexplained share application\nmoney amounting to ₹90,00,385/- under Section 68 of the Act.\n4. 2. Furthermore, commission expenditure of ₹3,25,010/- was deemed\nunexplained under Section 69C

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMUCH vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

69C. Even, ld. PCIT has changed her view in Revision Order as to the one that was taken in show cause notice issued. In this regard, reliance is placed on: 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT v. Max India Ltd. The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” in section 263 of the Income

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

reassessment proceedings under sections 147/48 of the Act. subject to\nfulfilment of the conditions mentioned in sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the\nRevenue cannot be left with no remedy. Therefore, even in case of block assessment\nunder section 153A and in case of unabated/completed assessment and in case no\nincriminating material is found during the search, the power

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

reassessment, the AO identified unexplained share application\nmoney amounting to ₹90,00,385/- under Section 68 of the Act.\n\n4. 2. Furthermore, commission expenditure of ₹3,25,010/- was deemed\nunexplained under Section 69C

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment by Finance Act 2021. Notice must disclose information leading to belief that income had escaped assessment. Information must be definite and not vague. Except issuance of notice under section 148 of Income tax Act by ld. AO, no opportunity was provided to the assessee which is mandatorily required under section 148A(b) of Income tax Act nor provisions

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassess the income, all the consequent proceedings were null and void and it was not a case of irregularity. Therefore, Section 292B of the Act had no application. Thus, it is submitted that the defect in the assessment order cannot be cured by relying on section 292B of the Act as it is not a procedural defect rather a substantive

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

reassessment proceedings under sections 147/48 of the Act. subject to\nfulfilment of the conditions mentioned in sections 147/148, as in such a situation, the\nRevenue cannot be left with no remedy. Therefore, even in case of block assessment\nunder section 153A and in case of unabated/completed assessment and in case no\nincriminating material is found during the search, the power

PREM LATA PANDYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1471/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2019-20 Prem Lata Pandya बनाम Deputy Commissioner of 302, Raj Mension, D-299, Vs. Income Tax, Tulsi Marg Bani Park, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./ PAN/GIR No.:ACXPJ9951A निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assessee by : Sh. S.L.Poddar, Adv. राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh

69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), The income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i)the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent, and (ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess completed assessments.\nThough the aforesaid observations were rendered in the context of completed\nassessments, the same position would prevail when it comes to assessments which\nabate pursuant to the issuance of a notice under Section 153C.\nIn light of the jurisdictional lapse and lack of incriminating evidence, the addition of\n6,95,634/- under Section 69C

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess completed assessments.\nThough the aforesaid observations were rendered in the context of completed\nassessments, the same position would prevail when it comes to assessments which\nabate pursuant to the issuance of a notice under Section 153C.\nIn light of the jurisdictional lapse and lack of incriminating evidence, the addition of\n6,95,634/- under Section 69C