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)

u/s 131 on the address of above companies requesting furnishing of books of accounts, details of bank accounts, copies of Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur ITR and other documents, but the same could not be served due to non-existence of the companies on their respective given addresses. From the Database of the department, it is gathered that

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

120 r/w s. 147 and thus, the provisions of s. 292B are not applicable.” 1.3We rely upon further judgments of Honble ITAT Jaipur Bench Jaipur in the case of Sh. Subhash Chand Ajmera v/s ITO Ward 1(4), Jaipur, in ITA No.61/Jp/2017 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. dt.30.01.2020 wherein the honble ITAT has quashed the assessment on the jurisdiction under

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

120 r/w s. 147 and thus, the provisions of s. 292B are not applicable.” 1.3We rely upon further judgments of Honble ITAT Jaipur Bench Jaipur in the case of Sh. Subhash Chand Ajmera v/s ITO Ward 1(4), Jaipur, in ITA No.61/Jp/2017 Koshal Kishor Sharma, Jaipur. dt.30.01.2020 wherein the honble ITAT has quashed the assessment on the jurisdiction under

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)

120 ITR 576 (Mad), the notice was served by the notice-server of the Department on the manager of the assessee- firm. The manager wrote to the Income-tax Officer seeking time. Since no return was filed by the assessee within the time granted, the Income-tax Officer completed the reassessment under section 144 of the 1961 Act. On appeal

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

120 OF 2019/11 OF 2022, MARCH 14, 2023) wherein it is held as under :-\r\n\"On a reading of section 80A(5) and section 80AC as they stood prior to 1-4-2018,\r\nit is found that when the latter provision was amended by Finance Act 2018, it\r\nwould reveal that the statutory scheme under

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

u/s 148 was not\nserved by the AO who passed the order and consequential by the order of\nassessment lacks jurisdiction. Ld. DR has not disputed the primary facts Ld.\nAR has relied upon the decision of our Hon'ble High Court in\nthe case of Mrs. ShubhashriPanickerVs. CIT (2018) 166 DTR 1 (Raj.) (HC)\nwherein it was held

ARUN BHARDWAJ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

120 read with Section 124 of the Act and the notification issued by the Board. 20. Thus, in our opinion, the appeal has to succeed on ground nos. 1 and 2 alone. The appeal accordingly stands allowed as aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/01/2024.” In the matter of Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India

SUSHILA DEVI JANGID,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 374/JP/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2010-11 Smt. Sushila Devi Jangid 65, Koshaliya Vihar Hajyawala,Muhana Mandi Ke Pass, Sanganer, Jaipur 302 029 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 7(2) Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AFMPJ 2091 P निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Utkarsh Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by :Shri Gautam Sing

Reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act for relevant A.Y still reflect as on-going proceedings under ‘For your action’ list on ‘e-proceedings’ tab on the Income Tax profile of the assessee. Also, there is no Order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 dated 24.12.2017 available under ‘For your information’ list on ‘e- proceedings’ tab on the income tax profile

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

b. Addition of Rs. 2,05,753 (being 5% of Rs. 40,15,061.29) towards alleged undisclosed expenditure under Section 69C on account of commission purportedly paid to obtain such capital gains. IV. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur–4 “CIT(A)”. The appeal was allowed vide order

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

b. Addition of Rs. 2,05,753 (being 5% of Rs. 40,15,061.29) towards alleged undisclosed expenditure under Section 69C on account of commission purportedly paid to obtain such capital gains. IV. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur–4 “CIT(A)”. The appeal was allowed vide order

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

b), (c) or I or s.31 (4). The\nexpression \"directions” In the proviso could only refer to the\ndirections which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or other\ntribunals can issue under the powers conferred on him or them\nunder the respective sections. Therefore, the expression “finding”\nas well as the expression “direction” can be given full meaning,\nnamely, that the finding

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 63/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 cuke Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd., Principal Commissioner of Vs. 76, Dhuleshwar Gardens, Jaipur Income

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

B” JAIPUR\nडा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री गगन गोयल, लेखा सदस्य, के समक्ष\nBEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 514/JPR/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13\nBrand India Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.\n262, C Block Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.\nVs.\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-6(1),\nJaipur.\nस्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

reassess under section 147 or pass an order 16 Castamet Works Private Limited vs. PCIT enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 28. The correctness of the claim of the Assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

b), (c) or I or s.31 (4). The\nexpression "directions” In the proviso could only refer to the\ndirections which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or other\ntribunals can issue under the powers conferred on him or them\nunder the respective sections. Therefore, the expression “finding”\nas well as the expression “direction” can be given full meaning,\nnamely, that the finding

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

BRIGHT SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no order as to\ncosts

120 TTJ 1001 (Jodh)\n3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR objected to the filing of additional grounds\nmade by the ld. AR of the assessee and submitted that the same were not\nsubmitted before the lower authorities.\n3.4 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record,\nthe Bench observed that with a view

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SUMS EXIM PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result , ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

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

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

M/S. BANSIWALA IRON & STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1388/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke M/S Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, D.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, Somani Building, S.C. Link Vs. Circle-3, Road, Loha Mandi, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadfb 2375 A Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri Dewang Gargieya (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

B to G (AO Pg 2). Hence the proceedings u/s 147 and the notice u/s 148 deserves to be quashed.” 7. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. 8. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also