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)

144B of the Act dated 22 May 2023 was passed by Ld. Faceless Assessing Office (“Ld. FAO”) assessing total income at Rs 7,55,95,441 by making the following addition: • Unexplained cash credits under section 68

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 r.w.s. 115BBE. Reject plea for peak credit, unabsorbed depreciation, and MAT credit set-off. The ld. DR vide submission dated 14.07.2025 further submitted as under : I. Limitation Period Under Section 149(1)(b) is Fully Alive The assessee has contended that the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation. However, this contention is devoid of merit in view

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

144B of the Act. 26. After the introduction of the above two schemes, it becomes mandatory for the Revenue to conduct/initiate proceedings pertaining to reassessment under Section 147, 148 & 148A of the Act in a faceless manner. Proceedings under Section 147 and Section 148 of the Act would now have to be taken

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

144B of the IT Act dated 29.09.2021 is suffering from specific defects, hence, order so passed by the AO is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The order of the assessing officer istherefore, liable to revision under clause (a) &(b) of the Explanation (2) of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8 SHRI

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act by the National Faceless Assessment Unit. 2 ITO vs. Vasudev Hemrajani 2. In this appeal, the revenue has raised following grounds: - “1. On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in admitting the additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule

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)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 completed on 22.04.2021, wherein the addition of Rs.11,65,11,479/- made on account of unexplained investment of stock as per provisions contained in section 69B r.w.s. 115BBE. 6 Milestone Dewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 4. Aggrieved from the said action of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before

SDC CONSTRUCTION,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 1(3), JIAPUR

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

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

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 30.05.2023 and made an addition of Rs. 97,00,000/- u/s 68 as unexplained credits from two parties Name of party Amount in Rs. Sanmati Gems Pvt. Ltd. 72,00,000 Siddan Gems Pvt. Ltd. 25,00,000 Total 97,00,000 The assessee against the order preferred an appeal before

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)

144B(1)(xvi) of the Act, the AO is required to provide an opportunity to the assessee in case any variation proposed is prejudicial to the interest of the assessee. Relevant extracts are as under: “(xvi) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall examine the draft assessment order in accordance with the risk management strategy specified by the Board, including

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

68 of the Act and burden of proving CIT vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR that apparent is not real. Heavy burden is 540 (SC) required to be discharged by department to prove that apparent is not real. It is trite law that burden of proving that apparent (capital gain claim) is not real (bogus) is on the person

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. POOJA KEDIA, JAIPUIR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax\nDepartment [ for short AO].\n2.\nIn this appeal, the revenue has raised the following grounds: -\n“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id.\nCIT(A) is justified in deleting

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. GOLDENDUNES HEIGHTS LLP, JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act”) dated 21.04.2021 passed by National e- Assessment Centre, Delhi [ for short AO] before him. 2 Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur 2. Revenue assailed order of the ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds : 1. Whether on the fact and in the circumstances of the case

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

144B, read with section 143, of the Income-tax Act,\n1961 - Faceless assessment - (Personal hearing) - Assessment year 2010-11\nTribunal remitted matter back to Assessing Authority by issuing specific directions\nregarding examining certain claim of assessee - However, Assessing Officer had\nnot complied with categorical and specific directions issued by Tribunal and\npassed impugned assessment order - This order was passed

PRANATI BUILDCON, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT CEN CIR ,KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68 and section 69 family. If the addition is made under these sections, the tax has to be charged as per provisions of section 115BBE. The charging of tax as per provisions of section 115BBE is automatic. Hence, no separate show cause notice is required for charging tax u/s 115BBE. Therefore, the argument of the appellant

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

144B and in accordance with scheme\nenacted by Central Government under section 151A – Whether after introduction\nof 'Faceless Jurisdiction of Income-tax Authorities Scheme, 2022' and 'e-\nAssessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022' it became\nmandatory for revenue to conduct/initiate proceedings pertaining to reassessment\nunder sections 147, 148 and 148A in a faceless manner Held, yes - Whether

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SHRI DULHE RAM MEENA, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act,1961 [hereinafter referred as “Act” ] by the AO. 2. The Revenue has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) NFAC was justified in deleting the addition of income generated through

AJEET KUMAR RAMPURIA,TONK vs. ITO WARD 7(2), TONK

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by the assessment unit [ for short AO]. 2 Ajeet Kumar Rampuria vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case ld. CIT(A) has erred in passing ex-parte order and deciding the appeal against the assessee without

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

68 of the IT Act is deleted. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA NO. 1115/JPR/2025 AY 2018-19 : 11. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in infrastructure work viz. road construction for Government of Rajasthan and Government of India under the PWD and NHAI. The assessee company has filed return of income

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

68-69\nd. DTAA\nGermany*\ne. TRC\nAdditional*\n71 of PCIT Order)\n(iii) Payment to KFW\nGermany Rs. 28.73\nLakh- By Article 11 of\nDTAA (ref. at page no.\n66 of PB¹)\n(iv) rest amount\nrepresent,\naccounting\nentries on account of\nforeign\nexchange\nfluctuation due to\nfinancial reporting and\nconversion.\nc. Clause (a)/(f) of Section\n194A

RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 being establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction could not have been presumed by the Ld. Pr. CIT and consequently, he could not have expected the AO to get the same proved by the assesse to the hilt. In other words, this could not be a good basis for holding the subjected assessment