FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

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

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

price which property would fetch on sale in open market on relevant date Held, yes Whether Wealth Tax Act provides a mechanism under which property is valued and net wealth determined for purpose of payment of wealth tax and it is not a fair market value - Held, yes - Whether in determining fair market value, guideline value prescribed for purpose

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2025 for making compliance on or before 21.04.2025. Reply of the assessee is awaited. 6. Further, the required additional grounds of appeal wise report, is as under: a) Inclusion of Reliability Charge while computing Transfer Price for Power undertaking u/s 80IA In the assessment years

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

148A(b). Accordingly, the procedure adopted by the Assessing Officer does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appellant also contended that no addition could be made under section. 69C when payments were made through banking channels. This argument is misplaced. Section 69C is not limited to cash payments but covers any unexplained or unsubstantiated expenditure, regardless of mode. Even

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

transfer of long term securities (Conditions precedent)\n Assessment year 2014-15 - For relevant year, assessee filed her return claiming\nexemption under section 10(38) in respect of capital gains arising from sale of shares\nBoth lower authorities had disallowed assessee's claim for exemption on basis of\nevidence received from Investigation Wing as purchase and sale were found

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Counter submission: The contention of the assessee that the proceeding has been barred by limitation mentioned u/s 149 of the Act is not tenable in view of the Para- 6 of CBDT's Instruction No. 01/2022 (F.No. 279/Misc/M-51/2022-ITJ) dated 11th May, 2022. For the sake of clarity para 6 of CBDT

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

Bench: Him.

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 the assessment based

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

transfer the case) and not by JAO.\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v.\nACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225\n(Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO\nand FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

transfer the case) and not by JAO.\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v.\nACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225\n(Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO\nand FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

transfer the case) and not by JAO.\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v.\nACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225\n(Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO\nand FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

transfer the case) and not by JAO.\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v.\nACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225\n(Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO\nand FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

transfer the case) and not by JAO.\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v.\nACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225\n(Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO\nand FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing

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)

transfer upon Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General of National e- Assessment Centre and not upon any other Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. As is evident from the above, the Court came to the firm conclusion that irrespective of the system of faceless assessment that

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)

transfer upon Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General of National e- Assessment Centre and not upon any other Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. As is evident from the above, the Court came to the firm conclusion that irrespective of the system of faceless assessment that

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

transfer\npricing orders wherein downward adjustments were made to the price\npaid for the equipment imported by the AE. The Assessee had filed an\nappeal to this Tribunal against the appellate order for Assessment Year\n2013-14 (arising from the assessment under Section 143(3) and the TPO\norder). This appeal was disposed in RKM POWERGEN PRIVATE\nLIMITED

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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

148A of the Act of 1961 which has no\napplication in the present cases.\n18\nITA Nos.709/JP/2025\nDCIT vs. Sapna Karnani\n16. Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute the legal position that where the\nbasis for reassessment is incriminating material and information collected during search,\nthe only legally permissible course of action is the one provided under section

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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

148A of the Act of 1961 which has no\napplication in the present cases.\n18\nITA Nos.709/JP/2025\nDCIT vs. Sapna Karnani\n16. Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute the legal position that where the\nbasis for reassessment is incriminating material and information collected during search,\nthe only legally permissible course of action is the one provided under section

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

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

148A of the Act of 1961 which has no\napplication in the present cases.\n\n18\nITA Nos.709/JP/2025\nDCIT vs. Sapna Karnani\n16. Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute the legal position that where the\nbasis for reassessment is incriminating material and information collected during search,\nthe only legally permissible course of action is the one provided under

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the persons/ members of the Maverick group, Jaipur on 22nd July 2015. In this group, in some cases department as well is assessee’s are in appeal against the order of CIT (A). The main grounds of appeals have been briefly mentioned