SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

143(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The action of Ld. AO is illegal unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing entire re-assessment proceedings, being void and illegal. ACIT Vs Hotel Blue Moon 188 Taxman 113 (SC) Taxancore Diagnostice (P) Lt. Vs ACIT 390 ITR 167 (Kerala) (SC) 3. Sanction

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

2) of the Income Tax\nAct assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was\ncompleted by the Ld DCIT Central Circle-1 Jaipur on 18.04.2021 by making\nan addition of ₹7,45,60,400/- under section 68

SMT. PUSHPA JOSHI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68,610/- made by ld.AO deserves to be deleted. 3.1 That, Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Id.AO in not providing the deduction on account of cost of construction carried out during the period Oct.1985 to Oct.1986 and during the period Oct.1993 to Nov.1996 in phased manner, and which was duly shown in two valuation reports furnished

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

143(3) was totally silent on issue of deemed\ndividend and he neither noticed provisions of section 2(22)(e) nor formed any\nopinion therefore, reassessment proceedings initiated by Assessing Officer under\nsection 147 was not based on change of opinion.\nIt is also seen that after objection/observation raised by the Audit party in\nthe case of Millenium Technocrat

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(2) of the Act was issued or served, therefore, in our view, it relates all the\nsubsequent proceedings as invalid. In view of the above facts and\ncircumstances, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and quash the\nreassessment proceedings initiated U/s 147 of the Act and allow grounds No. 3\nand 4 of the appeal.\nSince

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

2,64,00,000/- on account of cash deposited in bank accounts in the demonetized currency, as unexplained cash credit of the assessee by applying the provisions of section 68 of the Act as against addition made by ld. AO u/s 69A and taxing the same by applying provisions of section 115BBE of IT. Act alleging the same

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

143 or under section 144 in the cases referred to in sub-section (2) [other than the cases transferred under sub-section (8)], on or after the 1st day of April, 2021, shall be non est if such assessment is not made in accordance with the procedure laid down under this section." (emphasis supplied) 14. Keeping

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

68 on\naccount of unexplained credits and under Section 69C on account of\nunexplained expenses. Revenue further contended that incriminating\ndocuments or materials had been found during the course of the\nsearches and consequently by virtue of Section 153A, AO had to\nassess the total income of six years under Section 153A. Since the\nassessments were

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by making an addition amounting\nto Rs.70 Lakhs invoking section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of\ndeposit of cash on dated 11.11.2016 just after declaration of demonetisation.\nAssessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT (A). The order of appeal was made on\n06.06.2023 in which surprisingly, the facts

ITO, JAIPUR vs. BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

2. We have heard the ld. D/R as well as the ld. A/R and considered the relevant material on record. The only issue raised in the revenue’s appeal is regarding addition made by the AO under section 68 of the IT Act on protective basis which was deleted by the ld. CIT (A) due to the reason that

BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the

2. We have heard the ld. D/R as well as the ld. A/R and considered the relevant material on record. The only issue raised in the revenue’s appeal is regarding addition made by the AO under section 68 of the IT Act on protective basis which was deleted by the ld. CIT (A) due to the reason that

SUNIL KUMAR GATTANI,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 7

68 or 69 would not hold\ngood. In our view, in such a situation, the AO could not have legally and validly\nresorted to taxing the income of the Assessee at the rate of 60% in terms of\nprovisions of section 115BBE of the Act.”\nHon'ble Chennai bench of ITAT in its decision dated 20.4.2023 in the case

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3)/147 of the Act on 18-07-2016 on a total income of Rs. 2,03,67,210/- as against the returned income of Rs. 2,67,210/- by making the addition on account of receipt of share premium/share capital received from various persons to the tune of Rs. 2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(3)/147 of the Act on 18-07-2016 on a total income of Rs. 2,03,67,210/- as against the returned income of Rs. 2,67,210/- by making the addition on account of receipt of share premium/share capital received from various persons to the tune of Rs. 2

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

143(3) on 13.12.2019 and without considering the submissions of the Appellant had made an addition of Rs. 2,01,92,401/- under section 68

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds raised by the assessee the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below: “6. Decision: 6.1 I have gone through the order passed by the AO, submissions of the appellant

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds raised by the assessee the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here in below: “6. Decision: 6.1 I have gone through the order passed by the AO, submissions of the appellant

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

68. [Russian Technology Center (P.) Ltd. 2013 Taxmann.com 400 (Delhi-Trib)] 2.8. Mere inadequacy of an enquiry or insufficiency of material on record can be a ground to invoke powers under Section 263. Under identical set of facts, 22 Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur [2021] 214 TTJ (Chd.) 908, jurisdiction under Section