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)

90 taxmann.com 355 (Kerala) is as under: "Section 153A. read with sections 132 and 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and seizure-Assessment in case of (Scope of)- Assessment years 1999. 2000 and 2000-2001- Search was conducted at premises of assessee on basis of two documents received before search by Department through a Tax Evasion Petition allegedly

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)

90 taxmann.com 355 (Kerala) is as under: "Section 153A. read with sections 132 and 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and seizure-Assessment in case of (Scope of)- Assessment years 1999. 2000 and 2000-2001- Search was conducted at premises of assessee on basis of two documents received before search by Department through a Tax Evasion Petition allegedly

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)

90 taxmann.com 355 (Kerala) is as under: "Section 153A. read with sections 132 and 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Search and seizure-Assessment in case of (Scope of)- Assessment years 1999. 2000 and 2000-2001- Search was conducted at premises of assessee on basis of two documents received before search by Department through a Tax Evasion Petition allegedly

LATE SHRI JITENDRA NAGAR THROUGH HIS L/R SMT. DEEPIKA NAGAR,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BARAN, BARAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

90,000/- as unexplained income/credits of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee as per provisions of section 69A of the Act for the year under consideration under section 147 read with section 144B of the IT Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before

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

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

90,97,047/-.\n5. 2. It is further noted and as detailed in preceding para above that during\nthe appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any substantial written\nsubmission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal\nchallenging the addition. The onus lies on the appellant to support any claim by\nbringing in cogent documentary evidence

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)

90,000/-. Accordingly notice u/s 148 was issued by ITO, Ward- 4(1), Chandigarh on 26.03.2017 and sent by speed post to the assessee. The same was received back unserved. As the territorial jurisdiction over the assessee vested with ITO, Ward-1(2), Kota, the ITO, Ward-4(1), Chandigarh transferred his case to ITO, Ward-1(2), Kota

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.\n2. Accommodation

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

reassess the income in respect of any issue which has escaped assessment and which come to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section o) Oriental Bank of Commerce v Ad.CIT [2014] 90

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\n2. Accommodation

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)

Reassessment pursuant to material found in search can be done through recourse to section 153C only and not by invoking the provisions of section 147/148. 1.12. The provisions of section 153C are over-riding in nature and contain non obstante clause for sections 139,147,148,149,151 and 153. 1.13. Section 147 and 153C are not interchangeable

GEMCO INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

90 writ petition, delivered a landmark judgment vide its Ojjus Medicare (p) Ltd. order dated 03.04.2024 in [2024]taxmann.com 160 held that:- “119….. A… B…. C. Section 153C, on the other hand, pertains to the non-searched entity and in respect of whom any material, books of accounts or documents may have been seized and were found to or pertain

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

reassessment, the AO identified unexplained share application\nmoney amounting to ₹90,00,385/- under Section 68 of the Act.\n2. Accommodation

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

90,000/-. Accordingly notice u/s 148 was issued by ITO, Ward-\n4(1), Chandigarh on 26.03.2017 and sent by speed post to the assessee. The\nsame was received back unserved. As the territorial jurisdiction over the\nassessee vested with ITO, Ward-1(2), Kota, the ITO, Ward-4(1), Chandigarh\ntransferred his case to ITO, Ward-1(2), Kota

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

reassessment order or just\na day before when it was passed and the petitioner participated in proceedings. In\nthe present case, the challenge to the initiation of proceedings was subjudice\nbefore this Court and during the pendency, the order under Section 147 of the Act\nwas passed.\n\n18. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated