INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Sections 68 and 69C, as the additions\nwere based on credible evidence of unexplained share application money\nand commission payments.\n\nB. Grounds of Appeal\n\n1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in\nquashing the reopening and reassessment u/s 147

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

Sections 68 and 69C, as the additions\nwere based on credible evidence of unexplained share application money\nand commission payments.\nB. Grounds of Appeal\n1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in\nquashing the reopening and reassessment u/s 147

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

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

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 of the 1961 Act. Therefore, I dismiss Ground No. 1 raised in this regard by the appellant. 7. Vide ground no. 2, the appellant contented that the issue of notice is illegal and unjust. The condition of section 149 of escaped income being represented by asset' is not satisfied. 7.1 During appellate proceedings, vide submission dated 13.02.2024, the appellant

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\norder so passed deserves to be held bad in law.”\n\n2.2 As regards admission of additional ground so taken by assessee is\nconcerned, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that though legal\nground against order passed u/s 147 has been taken requesting it to\nconsider as bad in law, however, for the sake of clarity, additional

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 56 i.e. other sources. It may be worthwhile to mention that when in the\nAct for every additions, the provisions or section has been provided by the\nlegislature, otherwise there shall be no meaning of the Act. Hence the addition is\nwrongly made against the Act . (vide page 21-22 of the order).”\nSimilar view has been taken

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

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

147 and/or to revise the assessment order\nunder Section 263 of the Act. The scope of the power/jurisdiction under\nthe different provisions of the Act would naturally be different. The power\nand jurisdiction of the Revenue to deal with a concluded assessment,\ntherefore, must be understood in the context of the provisions of the\nrelevant Sections noticed above. While doing

SMT. LAKSHMI AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to costs

Bench: recording satisfaction for issuance of notice since the information is specific. Thus the reasons recorded for re-opening is on borrowed satisfaction and not on any satisfaction by the AO. The

69C of the Act by holding that the assessee has paid Rs.84,300/- being 6% of the sale proceeds of the shares as commission. 2.1 The Ground No. 1 of the assessee relates to challenging the validity of the order passed by the AO u/s 147 of the Act. In this regard, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

69C on account of commission\npurportedly paid to obtain such capital gains.\n\nIV.\nAggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur–4 “CIT(A)”. The appeal was allowed vide\norder dated 31.12.2024. The Id. CIT(A) deleted the addition made under Section 153A\non the ground that the assessment

BHASKAR CHOUHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIKAR

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and\nsection 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,-\n(a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing,\nseized or requisitioned, belongs to; or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\nA person other

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)

69C on account of commission purportedly paid to obtain such capital gains. IV. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur–4 “CIT(A)”. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 31.12.2024. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made under Section 153A on the ground that the assessment

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)

69C on account of commission purportedly paid to obtain such capital gains. IV. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur–4 “CIT(A)”. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 31.12.2024. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made under Section 153A on the ground that the assessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

69C on account of commission\npurportedly paid to obtain such capital gains.\nAggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur–4 “CIT(A)”. The appeal was allowed vide\norder dated 31.12.2024. The Id. CIT(A) deleted the addition made under Section 153A\non the ground that the assessment

MOHIT METALS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. CIT (APPEALS), NFAC

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Section 147, the Assessing Officer comes to conclusion, that the income, with respect to which he has entertained "reason to believe" to have escaped assessment, did not escape, or that it was not liable to tax, then merely because he had initiated proceedings, would not confer on him the continued jurisdiction, to assess the other incomes, which have come

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment is held to be bad in law. ( AY.2004 -05)\n4.Thus in view of the above submissions the Assessment order as well as notice\nU/s 148 may kindly be quashed.\n5. No income escaped: Further it is submitted that the notice u/s 148 can be\nissued only when there is any escape of income because S. 147 provides that

ANUSHA FINVEST PVT LTD ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

147 after making addition under section 68 and 69C on the reason that client code modification was allowed to the brokers by the stock exchange, within a limited window of time after business hours, for rectification of any mistakes in punching of the client code while carrying out transaction of purchase and sale on behalf of the customers however

MAHENDRA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment can be made by the assessing officer who made the\noriginal assessment. Dushyant Kumar Jain vs. CIT (2016) 237 Taxman 646\n(Delhi)(HC).\n\n7. Notice u/s 143(2) not issue :\nThat the learned Authorities below have grossly erred in law and facts in where a pre-\ncondition for passing an order u/s 143(3) is the service