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)

section 68 of the Act without appreciating that the said amount has already been credited to the profit and loss account on which tax has been paid by the Assessee therefore adding the same amount again has resulted in double addition which is grossly incorrect and therefore the Ld CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the addition made

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)

section 68 of the Act without appreciating that the said amount has already been credited to the profit and loss account on which tax has been paid by the Assessee therefore adding the same amount again has resulted in double addition which is grossly incorrect and therefore the Ld CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the addition made

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 68 of the Act is re-produced below for\nyour ease.\n\n68.\nWhere any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained\nfor any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the\nnature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the\nopinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

section 147 in the reason was typographical error, if considered correct, 46 Lovely promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT non-observation of such serious typographical error by two senior officers i.e. (i) Range Head forwarding reason to approval authority with recommendation for approval and (ii) Pr. CIT, approving Authority. Non observation of such serious typographical error led to the conclusion

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

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\nunexplained income

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)

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The assessee company craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee return of income declaring total income at Rs. Nil on 23.09.2014 for the assessment year 2014-15. In the case

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

Bench: Him.

section 148A(c) of the Act and thereby the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.07.2022. The assessee also challenged issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act before the Jurisdictional High Court. As the High Court did not grant any stay or passed on the order the ld. AO proceeded by making

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

68.\nIn first appeal assessee filed the detailed WS, Paper Book and legal\nposition of law. However the Id. CIT(A) did not consider the same in\ntheir true perspective and sense and confirmed the addition by stating\nthat \"Thus it was imperative on the appellant to explain the source of\ncash deposit. The appellant has failed to prove that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. POOJA KEDIA, JAIPUIR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued under\nSection 148 of the Act dated 27.07.2022 are set aside and quashed.\nHe also submitted that both the company was alive and the bills were\nplaced on record. The statement upon which the reliance was made has\nretracted from his statement and therefore, the same is not binding

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share\ntransactions) - Assessment year 2014-15 - Assessing Officer treated LTCG disclosed\nby assessee on sale of shares as unexplained cash credit on basis that assessee had\nintroduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus LTCG - Tribunal held that\nsince assessee had produced all relevant

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

148A(d), there is no discussion of sum of Rs.4,68,75,013/- and assessee is alleged 25 SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL VS DCIT,CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR to have taken fictitious profit of Rs.5,12,17,312/- and has concluded that such amount is liable to be added u/s 68/69. Thereafter, in the show cause notice (APB 138) at para

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

148A(d) of I.T. Act. Afterwards the assessee submitted detailed\nexplanation and evidence in support of its claim, but the ld. AO observed\nthat heavy payments have been received from M/s Mamta Trading\nCompany and its proprietor Shri Suresh Kumar has not filed the return of\nincome and accordingly these credits are unexplained and thereby added\nthe same

GCK STOCK PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 06/05/2025

148A,\nallowing reassessment up to 10 years in cases involving income escaping assessment exceeding\n*50 lakh and the procedure laid down in the Act has been duly followed by the AO in this case\nread with TOLA (Taxation and Other Laws [Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions]\nAct).\n1.3 The assessee is wrongly relying on the Supreme Court

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

148A in Act—It is well settled\nprinciple of interpretation that taxing statute is required to be construed strictly—\nImpugned order and proceedings are unsustainable in law-Assessee's petition\nallowed\".\nAlso refer Rajhans Processor v/s UOI in DB c Civit Writ Petition No.\n16985/2021 dt. 05.01.2023 of Raj. High Court.\nIn the case of Vijay Harish chandra Patel

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

Section 148A(d) of the Act. It is ordered accordingly.” Here also the same position and liable to be quashed the assessment order. Further the case of the assessee is on much strong footing because in the notice the time is given only 3.00 hour as the notice digitally signed at 11.06 AM on dt. 17.12.2019 and the time

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

section 148A(b), impugned order and\nconsequential notice were to be set aside.\nFrom the above discussion it is clear that the alleged property in question for the\nreassessment was sold by the appellant and not purchased by the appellant.\nTherefore, the ground raised by the appellant is hereby allowed.\n6. In the result, the appeal is Allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

148A of the Act of 1961 which has no application in the present cases. DCIT vs. Sapna Karnani 16. Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute the legal position that where the basis for reassessment is incriminating material and information collected during search, the only legally permissible course of action is the one provided under section 153C