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

40A(3), of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 – Method of accountings – estimation of income] [Assessment year 2005-06] [In favour of assessee). Ld. CIT(A) has filed to appreciate the above proposition of law and not even stated that how can the further addition on account of trading activity could be made once the same trading results stood rejected

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

40A(3), of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 – Method of accountings – estimation of income] [Assessment year 2005-06] [In favour of assessee). Ld. CIT(A) has filed to appreciate the above proposition of law and not even stated that how can the further addition on account of trading activity could be made once the same trading results stood rejected

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

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.”

40A(3) of the Act. 9. For the assessment year 2012-13, ground no. 1 is regarding validity of reopening of assessment. The ld. AR as well as ld. DR has reiterated their contentions as advance on this issue for the assessment year 2011-12. Further, the ld. AR has pointed out that during the scrutiny assessment U/s 143(3

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.”

40A(3) of the Act. 9. For the assessment year 2012-13, ground no. 1 is regarding validity of reopening of assessment. The ld. AR as well as ld. DR has reiterated their contentions as advance on this issue for the assessment year 2011-12. Further, the ld. AR has pointed out that during the scrutiny assessment U/s 143(3

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)

u/s 40A(3) of Rs. 101505/-. That after receipt of notice the assessee filled its return and also seeked copy of reasons recorded along with copy of approval of competent authority and copy of all the documents, reports and statements etc relied upon to form the reason to believe. That apart from the copy of reasons recorded, no other documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

147 and other related sections. Thus, the assessment u/s 153A are not denovo assessments since the purpose of making the reassessments under section 153A is to subject to tax, hitherto undisclosed income unearthed during the course of the search. It is for this reason that the second proviso to section 153A(1) provides only for the abatement of the pending

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

147 and other related sections. Thus, the assessment u/s 153A are not denovo assessments since the purpose of making the reassessments under section 153A is to subject to tax, hitherto undisclosed income unearthed during the course of the search. It is for this reason that the second proviso to section 153A(1) provides only for the abatement of the pending

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

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.”

40A(3) and thus the same is not allowable. It was held that when the assessee had shown those two heads under the P&L a/c filed along with the return, it cannot be said that there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Nothing prevented the AO to seek

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)

40A(3) at Rs 1,66,942/-. 3 CIT(A), reasons for deleting the addition:- The ld CIT(A) vide order dated 24.06.2009 in appeal No.392/2008-09 has decided the case as under:- Deleted the additions: 1. Diesel expenses at Rs.11,56,314/-, 2.Arbitration Award receipts at Rs.8,13,194/, 3Purchase of material like stone and rubble, sand and gritt