DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

search and seizure operation in case of Rajendra Jain Group. Accordingly, the AO proceeded to reassess the income of the assessee u/s 147

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

U/s 153A of the Act for all the assessment years on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and not on the basis of any material or information gathered during the course of search and seizure action in the case of the assessee. We find that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer as well

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

U/s 153A of the Act for all the assessment years on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and not on the basis of any material or information gathered during the course of search and seizure action in the case of the assessee. We find that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer as well

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

U/s 153A of the Act for all the assessment years on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and not on the basis of any material or information gathered during the course of search and seizure action in the case of the assessee. We find that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer as well

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

U/s 153A of the Act for all the assessment years on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and not on the basis of any material or information gathered during the course of search and seizure action in the case of the assessee. We find that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer as well

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

U/s 153A of the Act for all the assessment years on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and not on the basis of any material or information gathered during the course of search and seizure action in the case of the assessee. We find that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer as well

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

U/s 153A of the Act for all the assessment years on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and not on the basis of any material or information gathered during the course of search and seizure action in the case of the assessee. We find that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer as well

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

U/s 153A of the Act for all the assessment years on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and not on the basis of any material or information gathered during the course of search and seizure action in the case of the assessee. We find that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer as well

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

U/s 153A of the Act for all the assessment years on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and not on the basis of any material or information gathered during the course of search and seizure action in the case of the assessee. We find that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer as well

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

U/s 153A of the Act for all the assessment years on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and not on the basis of any material or information gathered during the course of search and seizure action in the case of the assessee. We find that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer as well

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)

search and seizure operation in case of Rajendra Jain Group. Accordingly, the AO proceeded to reassess the income of the assessee u/s 147

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

search and seizure operation in case of Rajendra Jain Group. Accordingly, the AO proceeded to reassess the income of the assessee u/s 147

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

search and seizure operation in case of Rajendra Jain Group. Accordingly, the AO proceeded to reassess the income of the assessee u/s 147

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

search and seizure operation in case of Rajendra Jain Group. Accordingly, the AO proceeded to reassess the income of the assessee u/s 147

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment u/s 147 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 1.3 Without prejudice to above, that, the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in confirming the action of ld. AO in reopening the assessment u/s 148 of the Act. However in the instant assessee case was reopened solely on the basis of information received during the course of search

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)

seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and/or survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the members of Chandra Prakash Agarwal Group on 28-07-2016 of which the Assessee is one of the members covered u/s 132. The jurisdiction over the case was assigned

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)

seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and/or survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the members of Chandra Prakash Agarwal Group on 28-07-2016 of which the Assessee is one of the members covered u/s 132. The jurisdiction over the case was assigned

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)

seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and/or survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the members of Chandra Prakash Agarwal Group on 28-07-2016 of which the Assessee is one of the members covered u/s 132. The jurisdiction over the case was assigned

SHRI RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating