ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

68 of the Act read with section 115BBE\nof the Act.\n6. Aggrieved from the order of Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an\nappeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant\nfinding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below:\nGround Nos.1, 2 & 3\n5.2 I have considered the facts

SHRI BITHAL DASS MUNDRA ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

153B(1)(b) of the Act. 3. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the year under consideration does not fall in any of six assessment years immediately preceding to the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made. Thus, the ld AR has submitted that the assessment year under

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

68,470/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain and commission charges of Rs. 9,000/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act at the total income of Rs. 12,24,18,200/-. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

153B(1)(b) of the Act without providing sufficient opportunity of M/S. PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP, KOTA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA being heard, which is against the principal of natural justice and is illegal and bad in law. 4. That on the law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officergrossly erred

PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA , KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesseeare allowed for statistical purposes as indicate hereinabove

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

153B(1)(b) of the Act without providing sufficient opportunity of M/S. PRINCESS INFRA & DEVELOPMENT LLP, KOTA VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA being heard, which is against the principal of natural justice and is illegal and bad in law. 4. That on the law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officergrossly erred

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

153B(1)(b) of the Act. 5.2 In first appeal, the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO with following narrations. Ground No. 1 & 2 of the assessee:- Ld. CIT(A)’s findings in respect of grounds of appeal of the assessee. ‘’5.4 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

153B(1)(b) of the Act. 5.2 In first appeal, the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO with following narrations. Ground No. 1 & 2 of the assessee:- Ld. CIT(A)’s findings in respect of grounds of appeal of the assessee. ‘’5.4 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHRI RAJLAXMI DENIM, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

68 of the Act on account of share premium received by the assessee company. 3. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and also raised an objection against the validity of the assessment for want of notice U/s 143(2) of the Act issued by the second A.O. i.e. ITO, ward (4), Bhilwara

MRS. RENU SEHGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

B provisions and introduce Sections 153A, 153B and 153C in the IT Act. 9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding the regular provisions for assessment/ reassessment contained in the IT Act, where search is conducted under Section 132 or requisition is made under Section 132A on or after 31 / 5 / 2003 in the case

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

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

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

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

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

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

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

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

SHRI AESHWARYA JAIN,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1129/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuke Shri Aeshwarya Jain The Dcit Vs. 65, Shopping Centre Central Circle Kota Kota Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Abjpj 3114 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms.Chanchal Meena, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 03/01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28-06-2019 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Arising From Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aab Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S 271Aab Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Which Is Void Ab Inito Deserves To Be Quashed.

68,700/- including the surrendered income of Rs. 10.00 lacs. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the of the Act at the returned income. However, the AO held that income of Rs. 10.00 lacs is assessable u/s 69 of the Act and therefore, the same is taxable

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

153B and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year. Assessment of income of any other

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

Section 153B(1)(b) of the Act. 2. All the appeals as well as the cross objections are being heard together and for the sake of convenience, a composite order is being passed. 3. The assessee is a group concern of Kota Dall Mill (KDM) group and subjected to the search and seizure action

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Section 153B(1)(b) of the Act. 2. All the appeals as well as the cross objections are being heard together and for the sake of convenience, a composite order is being passed. 3. The assessee is a group concern of Kota Dall Mill (KDM) group and subjected to the search and seizure action