SHRI PRAKASH CHAND KOTHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 69 and therefore, the burden lies on the Assessing officer to prove that the investment by way of cash loans has infact taken place and the amount so invested belongs to the assessee and the burden is on the Revenue to first prove the said allegations by leading positive evidence. In this regard, our reference was drawn

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 69 and therefore, the burden lies on the Assessing officer to prove that the investment by way of cash loans has infact taken place and the amount so invested belongs to the assessee and the burden is on the Revenue to first prove the said allegations by leading positive evidence. In this regard, our reference was drawn

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

147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that as the first proviso provides for assessment or reassessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within the six assessment years, is merely reading the said provision in isolation and not in the context

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

X and Y clandestinely to settle amounts, by cash or other methods. 6.9 SEBI Settlement scheme, 2020 SEBI has been passing orders against several entities, Including those connected to this scam, on options trading in liquid alocks on the BSE Thereafter it introduced the SEBI Settlement Scheme 2020 (and of October 31, 2020), which offers a one-time settlement opportunity

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 168/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2010-11 Girirajkripa Developers Pvt. Ltd. cuke I.T.O., Vs. A 2PSM Complex Power House Ward-3(2), Road, Banipark, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

56,12,530/-. The same was processed on date\n16.10.2018 u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case was reopened u/s\n147 by issuing notice u/s 148 dated 17.03.2020, in response to which\nthe appellant filed ROI declaring the same total income.\nThe reassessment was completed after making additions of Rs.\n6,93,32,499/- making additions u/s

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

x) of the Income Tax Act. Particular Amount Collected from Due date of Actual date of deposit employees (in Rs.) depositing PF 87,093 15.07.2016 19.07.2016 5 Castamet Works Private Limited vs. PCIT PF 1,01,548 15.01.2017 20.01.2017 ESI 11,261 21.09.2016 18.11.2016 ESI 11,742 21.10.2016 18.11.2016 ESI 20,037 21.01.2017 23.01.2017 Total 2,31,681/- Thus

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

56,689.00 1,78,92,739.00 PB-I [46- PB-I [58-73] 57] 21.03.2016 17.12.2018 4 2013-2014 20,48,030.00 8,14,33,841.00 8,14,33,841.00 6,17,64,673.00 2,52,62,800.00 2

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

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

x. The power to issue directions in the manner exercised by the ld. CIT(A) in the present case is clearly unwarranted and impermissible under the scheme of Act. If such power to issue binding directions for reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 read with Section 150 were to be vested in the hands of the CIT(A), it would lead

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)

x. The power to issue directions in the manner exercised by the ld. CIT(A) in the present case is clearly unwarranted and impermissible under the scheme of Act. If such power to issue binding directions for reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 read with Section 150 were to be vested in the hands of the CIT(A), it would lead

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

2. Source of cash deposits in the bank account established: As the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.1,15,00,500/- during the year in the Bank (PB3) on various dates. As the ld. AO himself has made inquiry u/s 133 from the bank and M/s Rangroop Builders Pt. Ltd.. On inquiry it has been proved that the assessee

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

2. Source of cash deposits in the bank account established: As the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.1,15,00,500/- during the year in the Bank (PB3) on various dates. As the ld. AO himself has made inquiry u/s 133 from the bank and M/s Rangroop Builders Pt. Ltd.. On inquiry it has been proved that the assessee

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

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)

X-A) On the same date, Hon'ble Apex Court has also admitted SLP on the same issue in the case of PCIT Vs Dhananjay International Ltd [2020] 114 taxmann.com 351 (SC) (XI) Similarly, vide order dated 24.01.2020 in the case of PCIT vs. Gahoi Foods (P.) Ltd. [2020] 117 taxmann.com 118 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has admitted

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)

X-A) On the same date, Hon'ble Apex Court has also admitted SLP on the same issue in the case of PCIT Vs Dhananjay International Ltd [2020] 114 taxmann.com 351 (SC) (XI) Similarly, vide order dated 24.01.2020 in the case of PCIT vs. Gahoi Foods (P.) Ltd. [2020] 117 taxmann.com 118 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has admitted

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)

X-A) On the same date, Hon'ble Apex Court has also admitted SLP on the same issue in the case of PCIT Vs Dhananjay International Ltd [2020] 114 taxmann.com 351 (SC) (XI) Similarly, vide order dated 24.01.2020 in the case of PCIT vs. Gahoi Foods (P.) Ltd. [2020] 117 taxmann.com 118 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has admitted

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

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

x As held in the above order, the powers of CIT(A) are conterminous with the power of Assessing Officer. In other words, the CIT(A) has wide power while deciding the appeal. Hence, the argument of the appellant are not found to be acceptable. As per Clause(2) of Section 251 of the Act, it is provided that

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

147 of the Act\nwas passed.\n\n18. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 26.07.2022 is\nquashed, resultantly, the consequential proceedings. The matter is remitted\nback to respondent to proceed with notice under Section 148-A(b) in accordance\nwith law.\n\n19. The writ petition is allowed.\n\nOn the basis of the above judgement