RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

reassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 09.01.2014. The assessee challenged the validity of reopening of the AO before the ld. CIT(A) but could not succeed. 3. Before us, ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee vide its letter dated 17.09.2013 explained that in the course of assessment proceedings complete details of working of deduction

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

reassessment proceedings is not in accordance with law as notices u/s 148A and 148 as well as order u/s 148A(d) have been passed by JAO instead of FAO, which 19 SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL VS DCIT,CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR is not in accordance with specific provisions of statue. Thus order passed u/s 147 is bad in law and deserves

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

548-555] alongwith relevant supporting documents. 1.21. That the Id. PCIT vide its order dated 30.03.2024 passed u/s. 263 has partly accepted the submission of the assessee appellant to the extent of non- applicability of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) for delay 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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. 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

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