INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

reassessment under Sections 139,147,148,149,151 & 153. " In view of the above discussion, the assessment completed u/s 144 deserves to be quashed. The order of the Learned CIT(A) also deserved to be quashed on this ground. Additional Ground No.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned

LATE SHRI JITENDRA NAGAR THROUGH HIS L/R SMT. DEEPIKA NAGAR,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BARAN, BARAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

VIII of the Finance Act, 2016 (28 of 2016) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act) and the completion of any action, referred to in clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the said Act, relates to sending an intimation under sub-section (1) of section 168 of the Finance Act, and the time limit for completion

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

36(1)(viii) and the assessee by making the claim\nwas trying whether the officer could be persuaded to commit a mistake and get the\nclaim approved. The assessee initially succeeded because the officer accepted\nthe return probably because the assessee being a Government of Kerala concern\nwas not expected to make a bogus claim in the return filed. However

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

36 Taxmann.com 523. In the said case, the facts were that A search under Section 132(1) of the Act was conducted at various business premises of Suncity Alloys Group of Companies, Jodhpur, to which, the appellant firm belong and at the residence of directors/partners of various firms/companies on 20.02.2004. Several incriminating documents were recovered from the residential premises

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

36 Taxmann.com 523. In the said case, the facts were that A search under Section 132(1) of the Act was conducted at various business premises of Suncity Alloys Group of Companies, Jodhpur, to which, the appellant firm belong and at the residence of directors/partners of various firms/companies on 20.02.2004. Several incriminating documents were recovered from the residential premises

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

36 Taxmann.com 523. In the said case, the facts were that A search under Section 132(1) of the Act was conducted at various business premises of Suncity Alloys Group of Companies, Jodhpur, to which, the appellant firm belong and at the residence of directors/partners of various firms/companies on 20.02.2004. Several incriminating documents were recovered from the residential premises

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

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act without appreciating true and correct facts of the case and documentary evidences brought on record by the assessee Our submissions:- At the outset, your humble appellant would like to bring your kind attention that notice issued u/s. 148 (PB Page 78)of the Act in our case was Time-barred and passed after

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

viii), a notice, through the National Faceless Assessment Centre, under section 144, giving him an opportunity to show-cause on a date and time as specified in such notice as to why the assessment in his case should not be completed to the best of its judgment; (x) the assessee shall, within the time specified in the notice referred

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.

36,356/- and after allowing the deduction u/s 24(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 making the addition of Rs. 30,35,256/-. It is also contended that no basis/detailed working was given in support of alleged ALV determined by ld. AO for unsold stock in trade. 4. The assessee prays for leave to add, to amend, to delete

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.

36,356/- and after allowing the deduction u/s 24(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 making the addition of Rs. 30,35,256/-. It is also contended that no basis/detailed working was given in support of alleged ALV determined by ld. AO for unsold stock in trade. 4. The assessee prays for leave to add, to amend, to delete

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra) in paras 33 and 34 reads as under: '33. The decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India), Jodhpur v. ACIT (supra) involved a case where certain books of accounts and other documents that had not been produced in the course of original

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

36] [In favour of assessee]\n\nWithout prejudice to above and alternatively, it is further submitted that even if the\norder issued u/s 148A(d) of the Act is considered to be valid even otherwise being\nissued by JAO, notice issued by JAO u/s 148 of the Act will remain to be invalid\naccording to the above stated provisions

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

viii) The SLP filed by the department in the case of PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. 120181 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted. The head note is as under: "II. Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment in case of (General) - Assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10 - High Court by impugned

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

viii) The SLP filed by the department in the case of PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. 120181 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted. The head note is as under: "II. Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment in case of (General) - Assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10 - High Court by impugned

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

viii) The SLP filed by the department in the case of PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. 120181 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted. The head note is as under: "II. Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment in case of (General) - Assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10 - High Court by impugned

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

viii) The SLP filed by the department in the case of PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. 120181 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted. The head note is as under: "II. Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment in case of (General) - Assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10 - High Court by impugned

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.

VIII. Assessee company then filed its Return of Income on 27.09.2012. The total income as per normal provisions was declared at Rs. 33,32,830 and the book profit as per MAT provisions was declared at Rs.99,59,487. The tax of Rs. 18,97,780 was paid as per MAT provisions. Assessment in the case of 11 Paris Elysees

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

viii) Copy of bills issued by B. Lodha Securities Ltd Page No.27 (ix) Copy of Contract Note issued by Tushar (India) Pvt Ltd Page No.28 (x) Copy of bills issued by B. Lodha Securities Ltd Page No.29 to 33 (Xi) Copy of Contract Note issued by Natraj Capital and Credit Pvt. Ltd. Page No.34 (xii) Copy of bills issued