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

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

148 Notice o Recognize that the AO adhered to the procedural requirements established under GKN Driveshafts. 2. Dismiss the Assessee’s Challenge Before CIT(A) o Acknowledge that re-challenging the validity of the notice at the appellate stage is procedurally improper and unwarranted. 3. Affirm the Reassessment Order o Restore the AO’s findings under Sections 68

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

68 only because he was bent upon in making the additions. The Leaned AO had issued notice under section 148A(b) on the ground that cash in the bank was deposited before the sales could happen. Order under section 148A(d) was also passed on this ground . Further show cause notice was also issued on 16.03.2023 on this

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)

148 of the Act. Therefore, the amount of Rs.6,26,68,011/- received as sub contract receipts from DRAIPL remained unexplained and hence the amount received Rs.6,26,68,011/- added to the total income of the appellant as unexplained credits in the books of account under section

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)

148 of the Act. Therefore, the amount of Rs.6,26,68,011/- received as sub contract receipts from DRAIPL remained unexplained and hence the amount received Rs.6,26,68,011/- added to the total income of the appellant as unexplained credits in the books of account under section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68. Once assessee has submitted basic documents\nrelating to identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness then\nAssessing Officer must do some inquiry to call for more details to invoke Section\n68.\n8.19 Merely proving the identity of the creditor does not discharge the onus of the\nassessee if the capacity or creditworthiness of the creditors is not proved

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)

68 to 69D in the assessment order does not absolve the assessee from penalty liability under Section 271AAC(1) if the nature of the income falls within its scope. In other words, the acceptance of higher tax liability under Section 115BBE serves as an implicit admission that the surrendered income is unexplained and falls under the categories listed

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

Section 148 of the Act. Read in this light, what has\nbeen recorded by the Assessing Officer as his \"reasons to believe\" is nothing\nmore than a report given by him to the Commissioner of Income Tax. As held\nby the Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal, the submission of a report is not\nthe same as recording of reasons

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

148.\n\n[2025] 175 taxmann.com 384 (Delhi) Sanjay Kaul v. Income-tax Officer *\n\nSection 68, read with section

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

148 was issued and assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer treating\nthe credit received as unexplained income under section 68

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

148.” A clear reading of the reasons recorded for re-opening of Assessment in case of the Appellant shows that there is no allusion at all to the appellant in the recorded reasons. There is hence no tangible basis provided in the recorded reasons that show that there may be Income that has escaped Assessment in the hands

ACIT, ALWAR vs. M/S PRIME CHEM OIL LTD.,, ALWAR

section 68 of the Act. 16. The assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) who allowed the relief to the assessee company and against such findings, the Revenue is in appeal before us. We now refer to the relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) appeal which are contained in para

BHASKAR CHOUHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIKAR

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

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

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

148 Notice\n- Recognize that the AO adhered to the procedural requirements\nestablished under GKN Driveshafts.\n2. Dismiss the Assessee’s Challenge Before CIT(A)\n- Acknowledge that re-challenging the validity of the notice at the appellate\nstage is procedurally improper and unwarranted.\n3. Affirm the Reassessment Order\n- Restore the AO’s findings under Sections 68

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

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

148. This procedural compliance\naligns with the requirements of the Income Tax Act.\n\n4. Findings of the AO\n\n4. 1. During reassessment, the AO identified unexplained share application\nmoney amounting to ₹90,00,385/- under Section 68

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

148 Notice\no Recognize that the AO adhered to the procedural requirements\nestablished under GKN Driveshafts.\n2. Dismiss the Assessee’s Challenge Before CIT(A)\no Acknowledge that re-challenging the validity of the notice at the appellate\nstage is procedurally improper and unwarranted.\n3. Affirm the Reassessment Order\no Restore the AO’s findings under Sections 68

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

section 68 as alleged unexplained\ncredit.\nThe ld. AO has further noted that in the bank account of the assessee cehque amounting of\nRs.1,21,400/- deposited/credited during the year on various date. The ld. AO stated that assesee\nhas not filed any details and hence the ld. AO has made the addition of Rs.1,21,400/-as alleged

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

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

VINITA BAJORIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

68 14. Copy of Material supplied along-with notice u/s 148A(b) 69 dated 01.06.2022 (Annexure-J) 15. Copy of Order u/s 148A(d) (Annexure-K) 70 to 98 16. Copy of New Notice u/s 148 dated 26.07.2022 (Annexure-L) 99 17. Objections raised by Assessee to Reasons (Annexure-M) 100 to 105 18. Order disposing of objections

KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

68, which was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2013, was not applicable to the assessment year in question. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s order was a non-speaking order and lacked clear findings. Therefore, the addition was deleted.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "148