PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5), Jaipur. [for short ‘AO'].\n\n2.\nIn this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:-\n\n“1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in stating that a notice was issued, requiring\nsubmission of documents or explanation by 31.03.2023, whereas no such\nnotice was ever issued (as is evident from the e-proceedings tab at Income Tax\nPortal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

reassessment order u/s 143(3) r/w 147, has started with the total income as assessed after giving effect to the order of the CIT (A) u/s 250 dt. 09.04.2019 at Rs. 75,95,250/-. Therefore, the ld. AO cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath now. 3. It is submitted that S. 44AB of the Act has been

POOJASHISH INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 143(2) has expired on 30.09.2011. Undisputedly, the assessment for the impugned assessment year was 7 Poojashish Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Kota Vs.The DCIT, Kota not pending on the date of search on 02.07.2015 and not got abated by virtue of search under section 132 on the date of search. It is a settled proposition of law that the assessment

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act in case of the assessee. The requirement for making the addition under section 153A in the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act in case of the assessee. The requirement for making the addition under section 153A in the assessment

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act in case of the assessee. The requirement for making the addition under section 153A in the assessment

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act in case of the assessee. The requirement for making the addition under section 153A in the assessment

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

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the addition of Rs. 25,71,25,000/- made by Id. AO u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unsecured loans taken from following parties and erroneously held that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness

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

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the addition of Rs. 25,71,25,000/- made by Id. AO u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unsecured loans taken from following parties and erroneously held that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness

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

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the addition of Rs. 25,71,25,000/- made by Id. AO u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unsecured loans taken from following parties and erroneously held that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness

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

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the addition of Rs. 25,71,25,000/- made by Id. AO u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unsecured loans taken from following parties and erroneously held that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness

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

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the addition of Rs. 25,71,25,000/- made by Id. AO u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unsecured loans taken from following parties and erroneously held that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness

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

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the addition of Rs. 25,71,25,000/- made by Id. AO u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unsecured loans taken from following parties and erroneously held that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness

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

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the addition of Rs. 25,71,25,000/- made by Id. AO u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unsecured loans taken from following parties and erroneously held that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness

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

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the addition of Rs. 25,71,25,000/- made by Id. AO u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unsecured loans taken from following parties and erroneously held that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness

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

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the addition of Rs. 25,71,25,000/- made by Id. AO u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unsecured loans taken from following parties and erroneously held that the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

5. Assessment year in respect of which it A.Y. 2009-10 is proposed to issue notice issued U/s 148 6. The quantum of income which has Rs. 65,00,00,000/- escaped assessment 7. Whether the provisions of Section Provisions of Section 147 147(a), 147(b) or 147(c) are applicable. explanation 2(b) is applicable 8. Whether

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

5. Assessment year in respect of which it A.Y. 2009-10 is proposed to issue notice issued U/s 148 6. The quantum of income which has Rs. 65,00,00,000/- escaped assessment 7. Whether the provisions of Section Provisions of Section 147 147(a), 147(b) or 147(c) are applicable. explanation 2(b) is applicable 8. Whether