ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

reassessment. 40. Under the old Income Tax Act, the corresponding provision is section 31. Interpreting that provision, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 has held that under section 31(3)(a), in disposing of an appeal, the Appellate Authority may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; under clause

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

reassessment. 40. Under the old Income Tax Act, the corresponding provision is section 31. Interpreting that provision, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 has held that under section 31(3)(a), in disposing of an appeal, the Appellate Authority may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; under clause

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)

194C. Therefore, it is evident that the said amount is in the nature of contract receipts and is therefore taxable under the head income from business or profession. In view of the above, it is evident that contract Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta vs. ITO receipts of Rs. 13,90,000/- as per 26AS is gross business receipts of the appellant

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

The appeal stands allowed

194C. Therefore, it is evident that the said amount is in the nature of contract receipts and is therefore taxable under the head income from business or profession. In view of the above, it is evident that contract receipts of Rs.13,90,000/- as per 26AS is gross business receipts of the appellant. Various court has held that what

MOHIT METALS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. CIT (APPEALS), NFAC

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

section. However, the AO is to assess or reassess ‘’such income’’ obviously the income regarding which he has ‘’reason to believe ‘’ to have escaped assessment, for any assessment year and while so assessing such ‘’income’’, the AO can make assessment with respect to other income which may also have escaped and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course

SMT. SONU KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the A

147 of the Act. Even otherwise from the plain reading of Section 150(1) of the Act, it is clear that it begins with non-obstante clause as far as the limitation provided U/s 149 of the Act and therefore, Section 150(1) has an overriding effect on Section 149 and not over Section 151 of the Act. The requirement

SMT. SONU KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the A

147 of the Act. Even otherwise from the plain reading of Section 150(1) of the Act, it is clear that it begins with non-obstante clause as far as the limitation provided U/s 149 of the Act and therefore, Section 150(1) has an overriding effect on Section 149 and not over Section 151 of the Act. The requirement

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s. 148 of the Act. The AO has relied upon the various case laws in his favour. In the remand report, the AO did not accept the submissions of the appellant in this regard and has relied upon the OM dated 20.02.2023 issued by CBDT wherein it has been clarified that even after insertion of Section 151A

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s. 148 of the Act. The AO has relied upon the various case laws in his favour. In the remand report, the AO did not accept the submissions of the appellant in this regard and has relied upon the OM dated 20.02.2023 issued by CBDT wherein it has been clarified that even after insertion of Section 151A

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147, Vivek Vihar, Jagatpura, Vs. Circle-6, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGIPB3068M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Vivek Bhargav, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by : Shri. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 22/01/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date

M/S GANESH (INDIA)PVT.LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC-3, JAIPUR

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

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after the Act” ] dated 31.12.2019. 2. Since, both the appeal is related to same assessee and for the same assessment year, the same was argued on the same day by both the parties and therefore, disposed of by this common order. 3. The grounds raised by the Department

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S GUNESH INDIA PVT.LTD.JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after the Act” ] dated 31.12.2019. 2. Since, both the appeal is related to same assessee and for the same assessment year, the same was argued on the same day by both the parties and therefore, disposed of by this common order. 3. The grounds raised by the Department