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

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

reassessment order subjected to revision passed on 15.04.2021\nwhereas the Checkmate (Supra) decision came one and a half year later\nthereto i.e. 12.10.2022. Therefore, the CIT could not have found any\nfault in the assessment order or could neither held as the subject\nreassessment as erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue interest. On\nthis is aspect the law is well

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

147 of the Act inter-alia postulates that the information received from investigation wing, emanating from the search records would not per se empower the Assessing Officer to exercise the power of reassessment. Such information with regard to escapement of income which comes into possession of an Assessing Officer has to be processed and, on the basis, thereof an opinion

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment under\nsections 148 & 147/148 - Held, yes - Whether therefore, where basis for initiation\nof section 148 proceedings in case of assessee was material seized relating to or\nbelonging to assessee during search conducted on 'M' Group, notices issued\nunder section 148 and impugned orders rejecting objections filed to issuance of\nnotice were to be quashed and set aside - Held

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(3), JAIPUR

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

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

section 147. 1. Unjustified high-pitch additions on the basis of "manuscript / paper delivered by a person habitual to make such type forged signature documents of various government authorities, which is also established by court of law and such person has been sentenced imprisonment of more than 3 years for such act(extract of civil court judgement already provided

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO 7(3), JAIPUR

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

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

section 147. 1. Unjustified high-pitch additions on the basis of "manuscript / paper delivered by a person habitual to make such type forged signature documents of various government authorities, which is also established by court of law and such person has been sentenced imprisonment of more than 3 years for such act(extract of civil court judgement already provided

MILESTONE DEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147 have already been passed for A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2016-17 even before concluding appellate proceedings (and were available on E-filing of Income Tax Department itself), which fact was duly communicated to Id.CIT(A) vide submission dated 8.7.23. Appellant prays that such action of Id. CIT(A) is also absolutely arbitrary and order so passed deserves

VIJIT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

69B, Section 69C or any other\nprovisions of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has\npaid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the\naccommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is\nno ground/material to form reasonable belief of any accommodation entry.\n(Refer PCIT Vs. Meenakshi

SHRI BHAGWATI PRASAD SHARMA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, DAUSA

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

69B on the basis of presumptions made on solitary evidence of exparte statements of Madan Mohan Gupta. 4. That the rough notings/entries made in the diary cannot be made basis for addition in absence of corroborative evidence proving the genuineness of the transaction. 5. That the Humble assessee craves leave of this Tribunal to add to, amend, alter

ASHA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

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

69B on the basis of presumptions made on solitary evidence of exparte statements of Madan Mohan Gupta. 4. That the rough notings/entries made in the diary cannot be made basis for addition in absence of corroborative evidence proving the genuineness of the transaction. 5. That the Humble assessee craves leave of this Tribunal to add to, amend, alter

SHRI SURESH KUMAR CHAWLA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD -6(3), JAIPUR

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

69B on the basis of presumptions made on solitary evidence of exparte statements of Madan Mohan Gupta. 4. That the rough notings/entries made in the diary cannot be made basis for addition in absence of corroborative evidence proving the genuineness of the transaction. 5. That the Humble assessee craves leave of this Tribunal to add to, amend, alter

SHRI ARVIND KUMAR SENGWA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, AJMER

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

69B on the basis of presumptions made on solitary evidence of exparte statements of Madan Mohan Gupta. 4. That the rough notings/entries made in the diary cannot be made basis for addition in absence of corroborative evidence proving the genuineness of the transaction. 5. That the Humble assessee craves leave of this Tribunal to add to, amend, alter

SMT. SAROJ DHAKA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), JAIPUR

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

69B on the basis of presumptions made on solitary evidence of exparte statements of Madan Mohan Gupta. 4. That the rough notings/entries made in the diary cannot be made basis for addition in absence of corroborative evidence proving the genuineness of the transaction. 5. That the Humble assessee craves leave of this Tribunal to add to, amend, alter

SHRI SHRINIVAS TRIPATHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

69B on the basis of presumptions made on solitary evidence of exparte statements of Madan Mohan Gupta. 4. That the rough notings/entries made in the diary cannot be made basis for addition in absence of corroborative evidence proving the genuineness of the transaction. 5. That the Humble assessee craves leave of this Tribunal to add to, amend, alter

SHRI KAILASH CHAND GEHLOT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3) JAIPUR

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

69B on the basis of presumptions made on solitary evidence of exparte statements of Madan Mohan Gupta. 4. That the rough notings/entries made in the diary cannot be made basis for addition in absence of corroborative evidence proving the genuineness of the transaction. 5. That the Humble assessee craves leave of this Tribunal to add to, amend, alter

SHRI RAJESH CHACHWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer without appreciating the provisions of the income Tax Act, 1961 by not giving the set off of business of Rs. 16,10,616/- against the income 2 Shri

MRS. RENU SEHGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

147, 148 and 151 of the Act and determine the total income of the assessee. 21. The argument raised by the counsel for the appellant to the effect that once a notice under Section 153A of the Act is issued, the assessments for six years are at large both for the AO and assessee has no warrant

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

69B (see para 4.1). In the present case also, investment in agriculture land was made on 07.09.2016 which is prior to 15.12.2016 and therefore even if it is held that it is taxable u/s 69 of the Act, tax rate applicable u/s 115BBE would be 30% and not 60%. Ground No.2 (AY 2018-19) The Ld. CIT(A) has further

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

69B (see para 4.1). In the present case also, investment in agriculture land was made on 07.09.2016 which is prior to 15.12.2016 and therefore even if it is held that it is taxable u/s 69 of the Act, tax rate applicable u/s 115BBE would be 30% and not 60%. Ground No.2 (AY 2018-19) The Ld. CIT(A) has further

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

69B (see para 4.1). In the present case also, investment in agriculture land was made on 07.09.2016 which is prior to 15.12.2016 and therefore even if it is held that it is taxable u/s 69 of the Act, tax rate applicable u/s 115BBE would be 30% and not 60%. Ground No.2 (AY 2018-19) The Ld. CIT(A) has further