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

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Mr. Manchanda, learned counsel\nfor the appellant, took us through several sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

147 r.w.s.\n143(3) of the Act.\n1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances and in law of the case, the ld\nAssessing Officer grossly erred in making the addition beyond the reason\nrecorded which is not permissible under the law and ld. CIT(Appeal) erred in\nconfirming the same.\n2. That on the facts

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

147 of\nthe Act is bad in law.\n-\nConfirmed the Action\nof the Assessing\nOfficer\n\n3.\nDenial of exemption of\nSec 11 and 12 of the Act.\n-\nConfirmed by the Ld.\nCIT(A)\n\n4.\nDisallowance u/s section\n11 (2) and 11(1)(a) of the\nAct\n33,50,772/-\n33,50,772/-\n\n5.\nUnverifiable Creditors

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147 r.w.s.144 vide his order dated 28.03.2022 for the\nyear under consideration. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred\nappeal before the ld. CIT (A), who after considering the contentions of the assessee\nas well as the material available on record, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.\nBeing aggrieved with the order

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147 r.w.s.144 vide his order dated 28.03.2022 for the\nyear under consideration. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred\nappeal before the ld. CIT (A), who after considering the contentions of the assessee\nas well as the material available on record, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.\nBeing aggrieved with the order

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147 r.w.s.144 vide his order dated 28.03.2022 for the\nyear under consideration. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred\nappeal before the ld. CIT (A), who after considering the contentions of the assessee\nas well as the material available on record, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.\nBeing aggrieved with the order

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147 r.w.s.144 vide his order dated 28.03.2022 for the\nyear under consideration. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred\nappeal before the ld. CIT (A), who after considering the contentions of the assessee\nas well as the material available on record, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.\n\nBeing aggrieved with the order

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 148 before making the assessment u/s\n147, the AO is required to serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish return\nof his income. Thus service of notice u/s 148 is a condition precedent to make the\nassessment u/s 147. In the present case as evident from the assessment order, AO\nissued notice

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 148 before making the assessment u/s 147, the AO is required to serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish return of his income. Thus service of notice u/s 148 is a condition precedent to make the assessment u/s 147. In the present case as evident from the assessment order, AO issued notice

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 2451 of the Act. Thirdly, the\ndepartment concedes that the order of Settlement Commission has not been\nchallenged further. Under the circumstances, allowing the department's appeal,\nlevying tax on the same amount from the assessee would be wholly impermissible.\nIn fact, it also would be opposed to the observations of the Assessing Officer and\nthose of the Tribunal

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)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

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)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

DEEPAK JAIN,C-SCHEME vs. ITO WARD 2(1), BHAGWAN DAS ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147 and 153C are not interchangeable but are mutually exclusive sections. It is not the choice of the revenue to invoke either of the two sections at its whims. The scope of the two sections has been legislated differently with a definitive purpose. 1.22. For the above ratio, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements:- 1.22.i Arun Kumar

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

TDS of Rs.21,732/-. The impugned order thus, to this\nextent in nullity being without jurisdiction and therefore deserves to be\nquashed.\n6. Rs.6,35,00,000/-: The Id. PCIT, Udaipur in the impugned order\npassed u/s 263, raised an issue for obtaining new loans during the\nimpugned previous year of Rs.6,35,00,000/-. The impugned order thus

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 into the Act – ABCAUS case law citation – 939 2016 (06) ITAT (June 2016) Inductotherm ndia Pvt Ltd vs. CIT (Special Civil application No. 858 of 2006) (GUJ HC), it has been held that The assessing officerin the guise of power to reopen an assessment cannot seek to undertake a fishing or roving enquiry and seek to verify claims

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

147 with the approval of the Pr. CIT to reassess escaped income. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 08/05/2020, but the company did not file its return in response. Subsequently, notices under Section 142(1) were issued on 01/02/2021, 05/10/2021, and 09/12/2021, asking the company to explain its position. These notices were also ignored by the assessee. Efforts

ARUN BHARDWAJ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 147 of the on the basis of third party statement recorded behind assessee`s back and further not contra vended to him. Denial of opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the witnesses whose statements were made the sole basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity in as much as it amounted

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2 NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

147 or section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub- section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case