SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassessment of income. Similarly, when no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3)/144 of the Act was made then the AO is duty bound to assess 10 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. the total income of the assessee whether it is based on incriminating material found during the course of search or on the basis

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassessment of income. Similarly, when no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3)/144 of the Act was made then the AO is duty bound to assess 10 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. the total income of the assessee whether it is based on incriminating material found during the course of search or on the basis

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

reassessment of income. Similarly, when no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3)/144 of the Act was made then the AO is duty bound to assess 10 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. the total income of the assessee whether it is based on incriminating material found during the course of search or on the basis

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

reassessment of income. Similarly, when no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3)/144 of the Act was made then the AO is duty bound to assess 10 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. the total income of the assessee whether it is based on incriminating material found during the course of search or on the basis

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassessment of income. Similarly, when no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3)/144 of the Act was made then the AO is duty bound to assess 10 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. the total income of the assessee whether it is based on incriminating material found during the course of search or on the basis

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

reassessment of income. Similarly, when no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3)/144 of the Act was made then the AO is duty bound to assess the total income of the assessee whether it is based on incriminating material found during the course of search or on the basis of information available on record or comes to his notice during

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

reassessment of income. Similarly, when no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3)/144 of the Act was made then the AO is duty bound to assess the total income of the assessee whether it is based on incriminating material found during the course of search or on the basis of information available on record or comes to his notice during

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

73,50,000/- was brought to tax as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act in respect of share capital and unsecured loan received by the assessee during the year. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by the AO u/s 68 except an amount

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

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

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

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

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

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

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

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

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

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

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

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

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

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

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

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

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

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

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