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)

68 of the Act. In view of above, it is submitted that the assessment order passed is grossly incorrect, based on false assumption and allegation, and without considering the detailed documents submitted during the assessment proceeding the therefore the additions made be directed to be deleted. In addition, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the considering the material placed

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)

68 of the Act. In view of above, it is submitted that the assessment order passed is grossly incorrect, based on false assumption and allegation, and without considering the detailed documents submitted during the assessment proceeding the therefore the additions made be directed to be deleted. In addition, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the considering the material placed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st\nJanuary, 2013 Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly\nbarred by limitation.\"\nIn view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

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

68 and 69A of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The Appellate prays to leave, to add, to alter, amend, the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of appeal

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

173/- 65,000/- 19/10/2016 9,75,353 1,27,000/- 31/10/2016 14,43,326/- 2/11/2016 20,99,220/- 1,35,000/- 3/11/2016 25,72,205/- 1,50,000/- 5/11/2016 29,76,815/- 5,90,000/- 7/11/2016 26,71,165/- 1,10,000/- 8/11/2016 53,10,622/- - 13/11/2016 53,10,622/- 50,00,000/- Ld. AO from the above chart observed

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

173 (kerala) 6 Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 49-58 Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore [2014] 52 taxman.com 98 (Karnataka) 7 Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Kanpur vs. Raj Kumar Arora [2014] 52 59-57 taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad) 8 A. Kishore Kumar v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-IV 68-73 (1), Chennai

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

173 (kerala) 6 Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 49-58 Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore [2014] 52 taxman.com 98 (Karnataka) 7 Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Kanpur vs. Raj Kumar Arora [2014] 52 59-57 taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad) 8 A. Kishore Kumar v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-IV 68-73 (1), Chennai

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

173 (kerala) 6 Canara Housing Development Co. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, 49-58 Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore [2014] 52 taxman.com 98 (Karnataka) 7 Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Kanpur vs. Raj Kumar Arora [2014] 52 59-57 taxmann.com 172 (Allahabad) 8 A. Kishore Kumar v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-IV 68-73 (1), Chennai

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to run on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st January, 2013 Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly barred by limitation." In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to run on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st January, 2013 Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly barred by limitation." In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

173 (Kerala) as well as decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Canara Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

173 (Kerala) as well as decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Canara Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

173 (Kerala) as well as decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Canara Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

173 (Kerala) as well as decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Canara Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

173 (Kerala) as well as decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Canara Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st\nJanuary, 2013 Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly\nbarred by limitation.\"\nIn view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st\nJanuary, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly\nbarred by limitation.\"\nIn view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

173 (Kerala) as well as decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Canara Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

173 (Kerala) as well as decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Canara Housing Development Co. vs. DCIT, 49 taxmann.com 98 (Kar.) He has further pointed out that the SLP filed by the department in case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., 94 taxmann.com 115 (SC) has been admitted and, therefore, the decision