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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

search and seizure operation was carried out on 7th October, 2009 and an assessment came to be framed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153A(1)(b) in determining the total income of the Assessee of Rs. 14.5 crores against declared income of Rs. 3.44 crores. The ITAT deleted the additions on the ground that it was not based

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 for carrying out the present reassessment proceedings. 30. In this regard, we refer to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. In the reasons so recorded, the Assessing Officer refers to the information received from the office of DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur pursuant to search and seizure

SHRI PRAKASH CHAND KOTHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 for carrying out the present reassessment proceedings. 30. In this regard, we refer to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. In the reasons so recorded, the Assessing Officer refers to the information received from the office of DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur pursuant to search and seizure

SAVITA GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO, DELHI

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

147 / 148. At the cost of repetition I my point out that their Lordship in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has drawn a clear distinction between two types of cases first where no incriminating material has been found and seized then the only remedy available to the revenue would be to initiate reassessment proceedings u/s

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

seizure proceedings, the additions made by the AO during the course of reassessment under section 153A of the Act are without jurisdiction and liable to be deleted and it is nothing but a review by the same rank of officer and the same is not permitted under the law. After appreciating such facts, ld. CIT(A) accepted the contentions

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

seizure proceedings, the additions made by the AO during the course of reassessment under section 153A of the Act are without jurisdiction and liable to be deleted and it is nothing but a review by the same rank of officer and the same is not permitted under the law. After appreciating such facts, ld. CIT(A) accepted the contentions

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

seizure proceedings, the additions made by the AO during the course of reassessment under section 153A of the Act are without jurisdiction and liable to be deleted and it is nothing but a review by the same rank of officer and the same is not permitted under the law. After appreciating such facts, ld. CIT(A) accepted the contentions

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

seizure proceedings, the additions made by the AO during the course of reassessment under section 153A of the Act are without jurisdiction and liable to be deleted and it is nothing but a review by the same rank of officer and the same is not permitted under the law. After appreciating such facts, ld. CIT(A) accepted the contentions

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

147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that as the first proviso provides for assessment or reassessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within the six assessment years, is merely reading the said provision in isolation and not in the context

SUNIL KUMAR GATTANI,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 7

reassessment is passed\npursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of section 153D and\nthat such approval is not meant to be given mechanically and while elaborate\nreasons need not be given, but there has to be some indication that approving\nauthority has examined draft orders and finds that it meets requirement of law\nHigh Court further held

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

seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 09.07.2018. There is no reference by the AO or by the appellant to any other pending assessment proceedings as on date of search. Thus on the date of search as per section 153A of the Act no assessment proceedings were pending. Accordingly, the judgement

DCIT, CC-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S. DANGAYACH HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

seizure operations were carried out u/s 132 in case of Ramesh Manihar Group on 07.01.2016 wherein certain information/documents were seized and basis information received from the office of DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur on 29.03.2018, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons to believe that income has escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee company and notice u/s

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

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

reassessment initiated\nunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the assessee’s failure to challenge\nthe same in accordance with the guidelines established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court\nin GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [(2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)]:\n1. Background of the Case\nA search and seizure action in the case of Mukesh Banka

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 initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the assessee’s failure to challenge the same in accordance with the guidelines established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [(2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)]: 1. Background of the Case A search and seizure action in the case of Mukesh Banka