SHRI GOVIND NARAIN JOHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Although The Second Round Of Assessment Was Completed At The Directions Of Hon’Ble Itat.

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without any cogent reason and hence needs to deleted. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance made by the ld. AO of Rs. 18,62,147/- out of interest and bank charges without considering the submissions made and evidences adduced

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(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the assessment year 2018-19 and after going through the same and examining the question of legality there of quash, cancel and set aside such impugned order. (c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other writ, order or direction under Article

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 by treating the exempt LTCG as alleged unexplained cash\ncredit. And also made the addition of Rs.5,76,262/- u/s 69C on account of alleged\nunexplained expenditure @ 6% for obtaining these alleged bogus LTCG.\n\n2.2\nIn first appeal before ld. CIT (A), assessee has filed detailed written\nsubmission and documents. However, the ld. CIT(A) has summarily rejected

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

68 of the IT Act of Rs. 12,74,04,995/- along with disallowance of commission payment and freight payment total amounting to Rs. 12,83,51,717/-. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) both on merits of the addition as well as validity of reopening of the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

143(1) of the Act. Thus the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 were not got abated by virtue of search under section 132 on 2nd July, 2015 and the AO would reassess the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 153A in respect of these four assessment years

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

143(1) of the Act. Thus the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 were not got abated by virtue of search under section 132 on 2nd July, 2015 and the AO would reassess the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 153A in respect of these four assessment years

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

143(1) of the Act. Thus the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 were not got abated by virtue of search under section 132 on 2nd July, 2015 and the AO would reassess the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 153A in respect of these four assessment years

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

143(1) of the Act. Thus the assessments for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 were not got abated by virtue of search under section 132 on 2nd July, 2015 and the AO would reassess the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 153A in respect of these four assessment years

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

ii) In this regard your kind attention is also invited towards the provisions of section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, before amendment in 2021, which reads as under: Assessment - Section 143 (2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

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

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

ii) In this regard your kind attention is also invited towards the provisions of section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, before amendment in 2021, which reads as under: Assessment - Section 143 (2) Where a return has been furnished under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

143(3) of the Act were completed and order was passed on 27.05.2021 by assessing the total income at Rs. 42,30,170/- which was declared in the revised return. Since the assessee paid the taxes u/s 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 on the 13 Shankar Lal Ludhani undisclosed income detected during the course of survey and since

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

143(3) whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) invoked the powers to enhance the assessment by rejecting the books of account and consequently the income of the assessee was enhanced by applying the G.P. rate to estimate the income of the assessee. Therefore, it is clear that the said issue and aspect of not accepting the book results of the assessee

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

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

143(3), at a total income of Rs. 1,25,83,340, thereby resulting into addition of Rs. 80,00,000. Ld. AO while passing the order made additions under Section 68 and invoked the provisions of Section 115BBE. II

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

68 SOT 449 (Jaipur Trib) while examining the provisions of 153C of the Income Tax Act which observed that “Satisfaction note itself must display reasons or basis of conclusion that the documents belong to a person other than the searched person. It is also settled law that the satisfaction note has to be read as it is without any addition

SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

143(3) of the Income tax Act by the learned AO and confirmed by the learned CIT A is ab initio Void and is liable to be quashed 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the learned AO not passed in accordance with

GEETA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WD 1(4), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

143(3) of the Income tax Act by the learned AO and confirmed by the learned CIT A is ab initio Void and is liable to be quashed 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the learned AO not passed in accordance with

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

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

3) of the Income Tax\nAct in contravention of the Instructions of the CBDT issued for taking up cases\nunder scrutiny, is a nullity.\n2.6 On the facts and circumstances of the case Ld CIT(A) erred in law in\nholding that defect in the Notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act stands\ncovered and remedied by Section

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

143(3) for AY 2016-17\nand the appeal is still pending for disposal. The assessee company\nhad claimed MAT credit on the basis of return filed.\n5. As regards the issue relating to disallowance under section 14A,\nthe assessee has made substantial investments in equities of\ndomestic companies, income of which in the form of dividend\nwould