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

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

217-\n235). The notice issued u/s 154 was referred as per page 96-97 of the paperbook. (as per\nadditional Ground No.3)\n4. Discussion on the limitation prescribed by the first proviso to section 147 as per which\nthere cannot be a reassessment u/s 147 after a lapse of four years from the end of the\n assessment year

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

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

c) to Section 147 specifically provides for reopening in cases\nwhere the Assessing Officer (AO) has credible information indicating that income\nchargeable to tax has escaped assessment.\n1. 2. In the present case, the AO received tangible information from DDIT\n(Investigation), Kolkata, supported by the statement of Shri Mukesh Banka,\nidentifying the assessee as a beneficiary of accommodation entries

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

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

c) to Section 147 specifically provides for reopening in cases\nwhere the Assessing Officer (AO) has credible information indicating that income\nchargeable to tax has escaped assessment.\n\n1. 2. In the present case, the AO received tangible information from DDIT\n(Investigation), Kolkata, supported by the statement of Shri Mukesh Banka,\nidentifying the assessee as a beneficiary of accommodation

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1. The ld. Pr. CIT, Jaipur erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in invoking

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1. The ld. Pr. CIT, Jaipur erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in invoking

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CIRCLE), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1. The ld. Pr. CIT, Jaipur erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in invoking

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1. The ld. Pr. CIT, Jaipur erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in invoking

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1. The ld. Pr. CIT, Jaipur erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in invoking

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1. The ld. Pr. CIT, Jaipur erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in invoking

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1. The ld. Pr. CIT, Jaipur erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in invoking

HARISH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1. The ld. Pr. CIT, Jaipur erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in invoking

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1. The ld. Pr. CIT, Jaipur erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in invoking

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1. The ld. Pr. CIT, Jaipur erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in invoking

MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1. The ld. Pr. CIT, Jaipur erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in invoking

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1. The ld. Pr. CIT, Jaipur erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in invoking

HARISH JAIN,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

217 to 223/JP/2022, 214 to 2016/JP/2022 &ITA No. 281 to 283/JP/2022. 7. Before moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal in ITA No. 217/JPR/2022 on the following grounds; “1. The ld. Pr. CIT, Jaipur erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in invoking

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

c) r.w.s. 13(2)(b)/(g) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Therefore, the benefit of section 11/12 is denied to the assessee during the year under consideration. 3.4 The ld. AO based on that fact also noted that the assessee society paid interest of Rs.1,78,70,209/- on the unsecured loans taken including interest paid to ICICI and HDFC

VINITA BAJORIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

c) Necessary sanction of the specified authority as provided in section 151 of the Act has not been taken by the Assessing Officer while reopening of the assessment. According to the section, sanction of Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax was mandatory to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act after 30.06.2021 as notice to the assessee u/s