BRIJ BIHARI AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 , JAIPUR

section 147/148 of the Act are\nnot applicable in such cases. No contrary decision has been brought to\nour notice. Accordingly, we hold that initiation of proceedings u/s\n147/148 by the AO to reassess the income is illegal being without\njurisdiction and consequently the reassessment order passed u/s 147\nr.w.s. 143(3) is also illegal and void abinitio

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

548-555] alongwith relevant supporting\ndocuments.\n1.21. That the Id. PCIT vide its order dated 30.03.2024 passed u/s. 263 has\npartly accepted the submission of the assessee appellant to the extent of non-\napplicability of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) for\ndelay in deposit of ESI/PF, however, has held that the assessment order

SETH BADRI PRASAD UMMEDI DEVI PAROPKARI TRUST,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment proceedings u/s. 147, issuing notice u/s. 148 and consequently passing by the AO the relevant assessment order adding an amount of Rs. 26,04,826/- in the total income of assessee. In support of this ground of appeal it is respectfully submitted as under: 1. That as per the assessment order information is available with the department that

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 28. The correctness of the claim of the Assessee for the purpose of Section 14A read with Rule

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SUMS EXIM PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result , ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

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

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

548, Allahabad). The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwar Lal Mall V/S CIT 256 ITR 536 (Raj.) has held that "There is no provision for permitting the cross examination the persons whose statement were recorded during survey." In the case of Mahendra N. Chatterjee V/s Collector of Central Excise

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

548, Allahabad). The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwar Lal Mall V/S CIT 256 ITR 536 (Raj.) has held that "There is no provision for permitting the cross examination the persons whose statement were recorded during survey." In the case of Mahendra N. Chatterjee V/s Collector of Central Excise

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

u/s 132 (4A) does not apply in this case. No statements whatsoever were recorded of Shri KailashKhandelwal in this regard from whose possession the said Pen Drive was found during the course of search. The assessee has fully explained the entries as appearing in the books of the assessee other than the ones appearing under the last column for which

PHOOL CHAND,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 after recording the reasons for doing so. 6.1 In this case, notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee on 17-03- 2016. In response to the said notice, neither anyone attended nor was any written submission filed. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 24-10-2016 requesting

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable