RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

9. Conclusion - In view of the aforesaid discussion and various case laws cited above it is humbly requested that penalty in this case may not be levied because of the following facts: - (i) There is no valid ground given in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings. (ii) The initiation of penalty is statutorily defective. (iii) The assessee filed

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)

vii) The head note in the case of B. Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) is as under: "Section 694, read with sections 143, 153, 1334 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Unexplained moneys (Admission in sworn statement) Assessment years 2001- 02 to 2007-08-Assessing Officer made additions as undisclosed income on basis of sworn statements

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)

vii) The head note in the case of B. Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) is as under: "Section 694, read with sections 143, 153, 1334 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Unexplained moneys (Admission in sworn statement) Assessment years 2001- 02 to 2007-08-Assessing Officer made additions as undisclosed income on basis of sworn statements

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)

vii) The head note in the case of B. Kishore Kumar Vs DCIT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 449 (Madras) is as under: "Section 694, read with sections 143, 153, 1334 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Unexplained moneys (Admission in sworn statement) Assessment years 2001- 02 to 2007-08-Assessing Officer made additions as undisclosed income on basis of sworn statements

MRS. RENU SEHGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding the regular provisions for assessment/ reassessment contained in the IT Act, where search is conducted under Section 132 or requisition is made under Section 132A on or after 31 / 5 / 2003 in the case of any person, the Assessing Officer shall issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish return

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

9(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the summons must be properly addressed and sent by registered post. In the present case, the notice was sent by speed post at the following address as per the postal receipt: "SH R. K. Prop M/s. Karol Bagh New Delhi, PIN 110065" Clearly, the above is not the address

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

9(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the summons must be properly addressed and sent by registered post. In the present case, the notice was sent by speed post at the following address as per the postal receipt: "SH R. K. Prop M/s. Karol Bagh New Delhi, PIN 110065" Clearly, the above is not the address

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

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

9. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee filed the return of income under section 139 on 29.12.2012 which was processed under section 143(1) of the IT Act. 11 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation

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

9. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee filed the return of income under section 139 on 29.12.2012 which was processed under section 143(1) of the IT Act. 11 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation

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

9. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee filed the return of income under section 139 on 29.12.2012 which was processed under section 143(1) of the IT Act. 11 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation

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

9. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee filed the return of income under section 139 on 29.12.2012 which was processed under section 143(1) of the IT Act. 11 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation

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

9. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee filed the return of income under section 139 on 29.12.2012 which was processed under section 143(1) of the IT Act. 11 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

9. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee filed the return of income under section 139 on 29.12.2012 which was processed under section 143(1) of the IT Act. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation was carried out on 03.03.2016. It is also not in dispute

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

9. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee filed the return of income under section 139 on 29.12.2012 which was processed under section 143(1) of the IT Act. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation was carried out on 03.03.2016. It is also not in dispute

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

9. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that in compliance to notice under section 153A of the IT Act, the assessee submitted its return of income on 22.02.2019 declaring therein total income at Rs. NIL (after claiming current year loss of Rs. 7,678/-) as was declared in the original e-return filed under section

VINITA BAJORIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act and in the Zuari Estate case, the assessee has not included certain transaction of property sale in its ITR whereas the assessee in question has duly declared the alleged transaction in her ITR and no discrepancy could be observed by the AO in the same during the entire assessment proceedings

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

vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known

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

vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known