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

92,349 2,72,340 20,009 2016-17 3,04,972 2,83,370 21,602 6 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. Thus it is clear from the details reproduced above that the computation of interest as shown in Form 26AS by the bankers may be based on the difference in the accrual date

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

92,349 2,72,340 20,009 2016-17 3,04,972 2,83,370 21,602 6 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. Thus it is clear from the details reproduced above that the computation of interest as shown in Form 26AS by the bankers may be based on the difference in the accrual date

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

92,349 2,72,340 20,009 2016-17 3,04,972 2,83,370 21,602 6 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. Thus it is clear from the details reproduced above that the computation of interest as shown in Form 26AS by the bankers may be based on the difference in the accrual date

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

92,349 2,72,340 20,009 2016-17 3,04,972 2,83,370 21,602 6 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota. Thus it is clear from the details reproduced above that the computation of interest as shown in Form 26AS by the bankers may be based on the difference in the accrual date

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

92,53,750/- for the assessment year 2011-12. Further, there was no dividend income earned by the assessee during these assessment years, therefore, in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee during the years under consideration, the disallowance made by the AO being 1% of the average investment is not sustainable when there is no specific

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

92,53,750/- for the assessment year 2011-12. Further, there was no dividend income earned by the assessee during these assessment years, therefore, in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee during the years under consideration, the disallowance made by the AO being 1% of the average investment is not sustainable when there is no specific

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)

Section 151.The action of ld. AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the reassessment proceedings. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT (A) has erred, in confirming the action of ld. AO, by not allowing the claim u/s 54B and, thereby

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SUPREME POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the results the appeal of the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 189/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Supreme Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 137-138, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 5773 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की ता

reassessment under Sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 8 153. ………………….. 30. The argument that by enactment of Section 153A to 153D has not eclipsed Section 148 does not enhance the case of respondent to initiate the proceedings under Section 148. On fulfillment of two conditions for invoking Section 153C the proceeding in accordance with Section 153A are to be initiated

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)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment and as it is lacking, this jurisdictional defect cannot be cured and thus 8 ITA 168/JP/2020_ M/s Girirajkripa Developers P ltd. Vs ITO assessment is liable to be quashed on this point. Notice under section 148 is a jurisdictional notice. Therefore, no service of notice under section 148 cannot be said to be a procedural defect and it cannot

RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BEAWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 150 lays down the exception that no appellate or revisional authority can give a direction to make assessment or reassessment which would have been time barred as on the date of direction by the reason of any other provisions limit the time within which any action for assessment or reassessment may be taken. The Assessing Officer has acted upon

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

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

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), 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 under section 147 of the Act of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) thereof, any proceeding taken against the deceased shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative, and therefore, the proceedings undertaken

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

reassessment completed u/s 153A without any reference to the incriminating material, following the binding precedents as cited above including that of the Jurisdictional High Court, the addition made by the AO u/s 40(A)(3) is not sustainable and the same is hereby deleted. In the result, the additional ground of appeal is allowed. 15. Now coming to the original

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

92,000/- Less:- Cost of acquisition 903892*1081/223= Rs. 43,81,647/- Rs. 87,96,055/- 430619*1081/244= Rs. 19,07,783/- 221058*1081/259= Rs. 9,22,640/- 570000*1081/389= Rs. 15,83,985/- Long term capital gain Rs. 27,01,95,945/- From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee has earned long term capital gain during