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

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

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

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

253 ITR 798\n(SC).\nPrayer In view of above facts and circumstance and with the sympathy and settled legal\nposition, the delay so caused may kindly be condoned.\"\nTo this effect, the assesee has filed an affidavit as to the condonation of delay in\nfiling the appeal.\n2.2 The ld. AR of the assessee appearing in this appeal submitted

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

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

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)

2. 17.09.2018 20.09.2018 3. 29.09.2018 27.09.2018 4. 03.10.2018 07.10.2018 5. 10.10.2018 12.10.2018 6. 19.10.2018 24.10.2018 7. 05.11.2018 11.11.2018 8. 12.11.2018 13.11.2018 4.6 It is seen that AO during the scrutiny assessment issued the letter dated 12/09/2018 whereby appellant was asked to submit the details through e-filing which also included the demat account for F.Y. 2015-16, details of work

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)

253 ITR 798 (SC) submitted that the Apex Court have again reiterated that the expression “sufficient cause” should receive a liberal construction and held that advancing of substantial justice should be of prime importance. The ld. A/R, therefore, prayed that looking to the above facts and circumstances and settled legal position, the delay of 21 days caused may kindly

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

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

147,\nsection 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person\nwhere a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other\ndocuments or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st\nday of May, 2003 but on or before the 31st day of March, 2021, the Assessing\nOfficer shall

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)

2. In the cases referred to in clause (b), 66 [in addition to tax, if any, payable] by him, 67 [a sum of ten thousand rupees] for each such failure:] 3……” A bare perusal of above, makes it amply clear for levy of penalty for non-compliance with notice issued u/s 142(1). In the instant case the appellant

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that as the first proviso provides for assessment or reassessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within the six assessment years, is merely reading the said provision in isolation and not in the context

SOYALA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,TONK vs. ITO, TONK, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2. Being aggrieved from the order the ld. AO an appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble CIT (A), who passed order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 04.05.2024 and uploaded in the online account on the same day. 3. As the Hon’ble CIT (A) did not allow any relief to us and hence

NARESH KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

u/s. 133(6) of the Act. Upon verifying the entries in the name of assessee appearing in the bank statement filed by M/s HBL Securities Ltd., totaling to Rs. 3,05,50,000/- [ credit and debit 16882000+13668000] same were found to have remained unexplained. At last she also noted that the assessee was director in some of the companies

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