INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

144B of the Act. 26. After the introduction of the above two schemes, it becomes mandatory for the Revenue to conduct/initiate proceedings pertaining to reassessment under Section 147, 148 & 148A of the Act in a faceless manner. Proceedings under Section 147 and Section 148 of the Act would now have to be taken as per the 34 ITA No. 656/JP/2023

JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4-JAIPUR,, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

section 144B of the Income-Tax Act without providing adequate\nopportunity to the assessee is bad in law and facts.\n1. Plea of Ld. AO:\nKindly see Ld. AO order page no. 4 to 9.\nSUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE\n2.\nYour honour the Ld. AO merely relied on the specific information which was flagged as\nper Risk Management Strategy formulated

SHRI PREM INDUSTRIES,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BHARATPUR

The appeal is disposed of, and the matter is remanded to

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

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “ I.T Act”) and upheld by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. Vide abovesaid assessment order, the Assessing Officer (in short “AO”) computed the total taxable income of the assessee at Rs. 2 Shri Prem Industries vs. ITO 2,16,58,432/- and at the same time also directed

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

144B and in accordance with scheme\nenacted by Central Government under section 151A – Whether after introduction\nof 'Faceless Jurisdiction of Income-tax Authorities Scheme, 2022' and 'e-\nAssessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022' it became\nmandatory for revenue to conduct/initiate proceedings pertaining to reassessment\nunder sections 147, 148 and 148A in a faceless manner Held, yes - Whether\nsince

M/S VXA GLOBAL LLP,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144B of the Income Tax Act being illegal, excessive and without authority of law. 4) The Learned NFAC (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the Order of AO making addition by framing various incorrect observations on surmises and conjectures and without providing the complete statements of the various persons and other documents/ evidences/material relied upon

ANIL KUMAR BATAR,SIKAR vs. PCIT-JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

144B was held as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to\nthe interests of the revenue as it was passed in routine manner without\nconducting any enquiry about the transaction of Rs.75,00,000/-. Hence,\nby virtue of powers conferred to under the provisions of section 263 of\nthe I.T. Act, 1961, Ld. PCIT directed the AO to make

LATE SHRI JITENDRA NAGAR THROUGH HIS L/R SMT. DEEPIKA NAGAR,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BARAN, BARAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, as per facts of the case, dates of the notices issued and the decision in the case of Kachrulal Jitendra Kuma [2025 (2) TMI 865 - ITAT RAIPUR] we find that the issue in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Evidently, under the facts and circumstances of the present case

MOHAN SINGH,VIDHYADHAR NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NCRB JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

bogus purchase. It is here to submit that Ld AO has not quoted under which provision of\nIncome tax Act he has made such addition to total income and thus merely on his whims &\nfancies the purchase of Rs. 266591095/- is treated as unverifiable purchase and added to total\nincome and further CIT (A) on the ground of non submission

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy of such statements to appellant, thus, denying opportunity of cross examination to appellant

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s claim of allowing reliability charge of Rs. 1.5/unit in computing Transfer Price of Power for the purpose of Deduction u/s 80-IA in respect

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s claim of allowing reliability charge of Rs. 1.5/unit in computing Transfer Price of Power for the purpose of Deduction u/s 80-IA in respect

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

Section 144B(1)(xvi)(b) of the Act.\n3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in rejecting the appellant’s claim of allowing reliability charge of Rs. 1.5/unit in computing Transfer Price of Power for the purpose of Deduction u/s 80-IA in respect

ACIT, NCR BUILDING, JAIPUR vs. HANS RAJ AGARWAL, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR JAIPUR

39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

144B of the Act was invalid for want of sanction under section 151. Section 151 pertains to sanction for issue of notice under section 148 and section 148A. 20. In the given situation, when AR for the applicant has candidly pleaded that he was under the bonafide impression that for raising such a legal ground no cross-objection was required

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus purchases is also not\nbased on any enquiry or verification of record by the AO but this is simply\nreproduction of information received from the Investigation Wing. The said\ninformation is also incomplete as regards the details of the purchases and the\nparties from whom such purchases were made by the assessee. Thus the reasons\nrecorded

NARESH KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

144B, dated 30.09.2021, was passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (“NFAC”), in a “faceless manner”. [PB: 1- 3] 2. NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 263 2.1. In the notice issued under Section 263, ld. PCIT raked up following two issues, which are summarized hereunder: - 2.1.i Assessee was a partner in M/s NV and Company, a partnership the firm

SONU AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

purchase and sale prices of their shares. That the material/information provided by you has nothing adverse evidence to the axiomatic conclusion drawn by you that I had entered into an agreement with the broker or any other person to convert unaccounted money by claiming fictitious LTCG which is exempt u/s 10(38) in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

144B were contrary to provisions of law and same were to be quashed.\nRam Narayan Sahv. Union of India [2024] 163 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)\nHeld: Where in notice under section 148 issued upon assessee, name of Income\nTax Officer who was Assessing Officer had been reflected, impugned notice\nreflecting name of concerned Income Tax Officer was contrary to provisions

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

144B were contrary to provisions of law and same were to be quashed.\nRam Narayan Sahv. Union of India [2024] 163 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)\nHeld: Where in notice under section 148 issued upon assessee, name of Income\nTax Officer who was Assessing Officer had been reflected, impugned notice\nreflecting name of concerned Income Tax Officer was contrary to provisions