SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

253 of the IT Act. Therefore, the assessee could have very well file the cross objection after receiving the notice of appeals filed by the revenue against the impugned orders of the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) has not adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee regarding validity of reopening on the reason that the issue of quantum

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

253 of the IT Act. Therefore, the assessee could have very well file the cross objection after receiving the notice of appeals filed by the revenue against the impugned orders of the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) has not adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee regarding validity of reopening on the reason that the issue of quantum

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 147 has been provided, however no such copy was furnished to\nthe appellant during assessment proceedings.\n\n2.5 In view of above, it is evident that the notice under section 147 and further assessment\nproceedings were invalid.\n\nGround of Appeal No. 2-\n\nThat the Ld. Assessing Officer is not justified making addition amounting to Rs.15

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

253 CTR 306\n(Gujarat)(01-03-2011) held that If upon further inquiry by the Assessing Officer,\nsuch details could be gathered and the nature of payment received by the\nassessee from SBL could be ascertained, to find out whether the same should be\ntreated as 'deemed dividend' under section 2(22)(e) or not, the same, would

SYLVAN GREENS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassess the income. 4. The assessee's contentions are not found acceptable. The assessee received subsidy from public funds to assist in carrying on its business. The VAT amount constitutes public funds of the State. Where such subsidy is granted to assist the acquisition of new plant and machinery for expansion of business or for setting up of new industries

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay of 153 days in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits. 4. Now, coming to the merits of the case, as there were three orders

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

147-203 2019-20 27.04.2022 3,92,77,480 17,02,82,090 13,10,04,612 204-273 2020-21 26.04.2022 6,69,95,750 18,79,04,440 12,09,08,688 274-324 2021-22 26.04.2022 10,49,04,680 65,30,18,040 54,81,13,364 325-405 Aggrieved from the additions made

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

147-203 2019-20 27.04.2022 3,92,77,480 17,02,82,090 13,10,04,612 204-273 2020-21 26.04.2022 6,69,95,750 18,79,04,440 12,09,08,688 274-324 2021-22 26.04.2022 10,49,04,680 65,30,18,040 54,81,13,364 325-405 Aggrieved from the additions made

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of 2 Shri Digamber Jain Atikshaya Keshtra the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the reassessment proceedings being illegal and without any basis. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

147 of Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the Id. CIT(A) /NFAC is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the reassessment proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) /NFAC has erred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

reassessment was completed on 12.12.2018 whereby the AO has made addition under section 68 of the IT Act of Rs. 12,74,04,995/- along with disallowance of commission payment and freight payment total amounting to Rs. 12,83,51,717/-. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) both on merits of the addition

ACIT, NCR BUILDING, JAIPUR vs. HANS RAJ AGARWAL, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR JAIPUR

39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held "After discovery of the primary facts relating to the transactions evidenced by the drafts it was for the officer to make the necessary enquiries and draw proper inference as to whether the amounts represented by the drafts could be treated as part of the total income of the appellant. This the officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

u/s 143(3) of Prem\nKunj Commosales P Ltd for AY 2014-15 dated\n07.12.2016\n146-\n152\n25. Copy of assessment order u/s 143(3) of\nPanchkoti Wholeseller P Ltd for AY 2014-15 dated\n13.12.2016\n153-\n159\n26. Copy of assessment order u/s 143(3) of Night\nBird Barter P Ltd for AY 2014-15 dated\n21.11.2016\n160-\n165

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings in spite of multiple hearing opportunities provided to the appellant. The comprehensive submission made by the appellant is silent on this particular issue. It is needless to mention here that burden of proof lies on the appellant. 8 Raghav Commodities vs. ITO The appellant failed to discharge this primary onus

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings along with the reasons recordedand has not provided the same to the Appellant even at the time ofassessmentproceedings.Moreover,itishumblysubmittedbeforeyourhonour that the Hon’ble High Court in the case mentioned above hasfurther held that the reasons to believe recorded by the A.O. shoulddiscloseallthereasonsrecordedbytheA.O.forinitiationofreassessmentproceed ings.ThereasonstobelieveconveyedtoAppellantshouldalsoac companythecomment/endorsementofthesuperiorauthoritywhichintheextantcasehas notbeencommunicatedbyyourgoodselftotheAssessee.Itistobeappreciatedthat the reasons to believe should also accompany the sanctions ofapprovalfromthehigherauthorityforinitiationofproceedingsu/s147oftheAct.Same wasnotprovidedbytheLd.A.O.totheAppellantwiththe “reasonstobelieve”. • ItissubmittedthattheHon

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment proceedings along with the reasons recordedand has not provided the same to the Appellant even at the time ofassessmentproceedings.Moreover,itishumblysubmittedbeforeyourhonour that the Hon’ble High Court in the case mentioned above hasfurther held that the reasons to believe recorded by the A.O. shoulddiscloseallthereasonsrecordedbytheA.O.forinitiationofreassessmentproceed ings.ThereasonstobelieveconveyedtoAppellantshouldalsoac companythecomment/endorsementofthesuperiorauthoritywhichintheextantcasehas notbeencommunicatedbyyourgoodselftotheAssessee.Itistobeappreciatedthat the reasons to believe should also accompany the sanctions ofapprovalfromthehigherauthorityforinitiationofproceedingsu/s147oftheAct.Same wasnotprovidedbytheLd.A.O.totheAppellantwiththe “reasonstobelieve”. • ItissubmittedthattheHon

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

section 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by ACIT, Circle-2, Jaipur. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 2 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax grossly erred in passing an order u/s

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

253 ITR 798 (SC). Prayer In view of above facts and circumstance and with the sympathy and settled legal position, the delay so caused may kindly be condoned." To this effect, the assesee has filed an affidavit as to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2.2 The ld. AR of the assessee appearing in this appeal submitted that