SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

40A(3) and section 69C are\naltogether different and once Id.AO was satisfied that provisions of section\n40A(3) are not applicable (as is evident from show cause notice and assessment\norder), he was duty bound to give opportunity to assessee to furnish explanation\non section 69C before invoking such provisions. It is trite law that assessee\nshould be made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

147. 11 Reasons for the belief that the income Reasons as per annexure page has escaped assessment 1 to 11. In view of the reasons it is requested that necessary approval as laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 151 of the IT Act, 1961 may kindly be accorded. Dated 30-03-2016 (G P Awasthi), Income Tax Officer

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

147. 11 Reasons for the belief that the income Reasons as per annexure page has escaped assessment 1 to 11. In view of the reasons it is requested that necessary approval as laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 151 of the IT Act, 1961 may kindly be accorded. Dated 30-03-2016 (G P Awasthi), Income Tax Officer

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 946 & 947/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 cuke Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta The ITO, Vs. Prop

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 946 & 947/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 cuke Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta The ITO, Vs. Prop

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

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can't usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 147/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 cuke Aman Exports International DCIT, Vs. G-93 Epip Sitapura, Industrial Area Circle

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

b), 145. ITO vs Nardev Kumar Gupta (2013) 22 ITR (Trib.) 273 Jaipur ITAT wherein after relying upon a number of judicial pronouncements, it has been held by Hon’ble Bench that once book results are rejected and ad hoc addition has been made applying G P rate , no separate addition u/s 40A(3) can be made by making disallowance

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

b), 145. ITO vs Nardev Kumar Gupta (2013) 22 ITR (Trib.) 273 Jaipur ITAT wherein after relying upon a number of judicial pronouncements, it has been held by Hon’ble Bench that once book results are rejected and ad hoc addition has been made applying G P rate , no separate addition u/s 40A(3) can be made by making disallowance

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)

reassessment proceedings filed a revised computation offering an additional 0.5% above the originally returned income (accepted by the department with income of Rs 4,67,737/-) and on the interest portion@ 8.5% amounting to Rs. 11,85,314/- thus revising his total income to Rs. 16,82,284)-& passing the additional tax & interest thereon voluntarily. The fact involved was that

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

reassessment. 40. Under the old Income Tax Act, the corresponding provision is section 31. Interpreting that provision, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 has held that under section 31(3)(a), in disposing of an appeal, the Appellate Authority may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; under clause (b

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

reassessment. 40. Under the old Income Tax Act, the corresponding provision is section 31. Interpreting that provision, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 has held that under section 31(3)(a), in disposing of an appeal, the Appellate Authority may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; under clause (b

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

reassessment. 40. Under the old Income Tax Act, the corresponding provision is section 31. Interpreting that provision, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 has held that under section 31(3)(a), in disposing of an appeal, the Appellate Authority may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; under clause (b

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

reassessment. 40. Under the old Income Tax Act, the corresponding provision is section 31. Interpreting that provision, the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate [1964] 53 ITR 225 has held that under section 31(3)(a), in disposing of an appeal, the Appellate Authority may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment; under clause (b

WHEATONS DESIGN PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT / DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Hearing.”

reassessment proceedings could not be sustained. Chowgule& Company (P) Ltd. Vs. JCIT &Anr. (2023) 224 DTR 295 (Bombay) (HC) The reasons furnished do not even allege that there was a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessees assessment for AY 2012-13. Such failure is an essential jurisdictional parameter that must be fulfilled before

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GODAWARI ESTATES PVT. LTD.,

reassessing the completed assessment. Assessee’s appeal fails in Gr No 1. 3.2 Ground No. 2 & 3: “Regarding addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by applying the provisions of section 56(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 treating the share capital and premium thereon received from various companies as income of the assessee.” 3.2.1 Submission made: Relevant extracts

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

M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, 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

b) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and has acted whimsically in relyingupon her discretion having no judicial basis for arriving at a GP of 1%. 6 The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and has committed a grave error of law in not giving notice to the Assessing Officer as contemplated within