LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

2, reasons for belief of escapement of income is not as per law considering following facts:  Though reference about receipt of information from investigation wing has been given, no reference has been provided about the nature of information, nature of investigation carried on by the investigation wing and the basis of the allegation, which leads to conclusion that legal transaction

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)

147- These cannot be the reasons for proceeding under s. 147/148-From the so-called reasons it is not at all discernible as to whether the AO has applied his mind to the information and independently arrived at a belief on the basis of the material before him that income had escaped assessment-Proceedings under s. 147/148 rightly quashed by Tribunal

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

35,00,000/-. The impugned order thus,\nto this extent is a nullity being without jurisdiction and therefore\ndeserves to be quashed.\n7. The appellant prays your honor indulgences to add, amend or alter\nof or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.”\n3.\nAt the outset of the hearing the bench noted

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

ia) and disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) for\ndelay in deposit of ESI/PF, however, has held that the assessment order dated\n12.04.2021 passed by Id. Assessing Officer is erroneous & prejudicial to the\ninterest of revenue qua (a) benefit of section 10AA is not available to the\nassessee appellant, (b) disallowance u/s. 14A ought to have been made, (c)\nsurrendered stock

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

reassessment notice upon him-Held, yes-\n2.4 With regard to the contention of the assessee that the assessment\ncompleted is invalid in absence of notice u/s 143(2) by the DOT, Central\nCircle-1, Jaipur who had completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT\nAct, 1961 on 18/04/2021, it is to be stated here that notice u/s

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

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

35 which is on law point of making another addition of Rs.2,28,705/- u/s 147 even when no addition was made for the reasons recorded u/s 147. Due to continuous ill health of the mother of the Director of the appellant company the director could not attend e-appellate proceedings still there was no necessity of any material

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147, section 148,section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

IA. A separate audit report in the prescribed form 10CCB in\nsupport of the claim for deduction under Section 80IA/80IB was also duly submitted. The\nassessee had also submitted reply pursuant to all queries made by AO during the assessment\nproceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the contention sought to\nbe raised

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalrashleela Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., C-5, Krishna Balram, Calgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017. Pan No.: Aadcr2594J ...... Appellant Vs.

147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("ITA"). The action of the Ld. CIT (A) 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 any basis. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming

COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-VI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

2 Transportation 1100000 440000 440000 expenses 40% 40% 3 Supply of 5000000 2000000 2000000 windmill device- steel tower 40% 40% 4 Supply of 2300000 920000 920000 windmill device- transformer 40% 5 Development 1600000 640000 2.50% 40000 Rights** 6 Civil and 1500000 5% 75000 5% 75000 industrial construction 7 Erection and 1500000 7.50% 112500 40% 600000 commissioning Here comes the difference

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

35,256/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and Rs. 48,14,460/- for the assessment year 2011-12. The AO completed the reassessments under section 147 read with section 143(3) for both the years and made the additions on account of income from house property by determining the annual letting value of the closing stock being

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

35,256/- for the assessment year 2010-11 and Rs. 48,14,460/- for the assessment year 2011-12. The AO completed the reassessments under section 147 read with section 143(3) for both the years and made the additions on account of income from house property by determining the annual letting value of the closing stock being

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

reassessment order u/s 143(3) read with 147 was passed by the Assessing Officer on 13.12.2017 wherein the assessee was found eligible for deduction u/s 10AA to the extent of Rs. 7,21,35,825/- as originally 3 M/s Amrapali Exports, Jaipur Vs. DCIT, Jaipur assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act. However, books of accounts were rejected u/s

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

reassessment proceedings being illegal,\nwithout any basis and contrary to principles of natural justice.\n\n6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred in, confirming the\naction of the ld. AO, in rejecting the books of accounts by invoking the provisions of section\n145(3). The action

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

35 to 37, EPIP Jewellary Zone, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur. 8. The return of income of the year under appeal was filed on 26.03.2013 declaring NIL income after claiming loss of Rs. 4,73,719/- and Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide orders dated 29.03.2014 at a total income of Rs. 62,69,970/- after invoking provisions

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

35 to 37, EPIP Jewellary Zone, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur. 8. The return of income of the year under appeal was filed on 26.03.2013 declaring NIL income after claiming loss of Rs. 4,73,719/- and Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide orders dated 29.03.2014 at a total income of Rs. 62,69,970/- after invoking provisions

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-1, KOTA vs. SHRI CHANDI RAM, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

147 and completed assessment u/s 147/31/147 dated 26.12.2013 at total income of Rs.1,46,66,330/-. By making the additionas mentioned in point no.2 2. Nature of addition 1. Receipt of Arbitration at Rs.91,59,305/- 2. Accrued interest on FDRs at Rs.7,55,642/- 3. Expense of payment disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) at Rs.39

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

u/s 132(4) where certain facts are recorded, from the interpretation of which AO could conclude that there was some undisclosed income, then that statement can be 52 M/s. Bhivaram PannalalKumawat vs ACIT , Central Circle-3, Jaipur considered as incriminating material. However, in the present case, the statement stood retracted supported by reasons and subsequent to this decision various High