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)

section 147, however, remain the same." (emphasis supplied) 18. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the decision reported in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. [2009] 309 ITR 110 , wherein it was held as follows: "In those circumstances, it could not be regarded that the assessee had failed to disclose fully

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

section 147, however, remain the same." (emphasis supplied) 18. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the decision reported in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. [2009] 309 ITR 110 , wherein it was held as follows: ITA 437/JP/2017_ 41 DCIT Vs. Vimal Chand Surana (HUF) "In those circumstances, it could not be regarded

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to\n153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).\n\n5\n\nITA No. 1393/JPR/2024\nShri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur.\n\n2.2 The expression 'believe" in section 147

ACIT, ALWAR vs. M/S PRIME CHEM OIL LTD.,, ALWAR

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)” “Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which

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

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

SHRI SALASAR BALAJI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may\nbe, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153\nreferred to as the relevant assessment year).\"\n\n26. But then if it were to be so read, the word \"also\" becomes redundant, and to make sense of\nthe sentence, the section would

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in\nsections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) \nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this\nsection has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in\nsections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this\nsection has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

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

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in\nsections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :\n\nProvided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this\nsection has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall

RAM KHILARI MEENA,DAUSA vs. ITO, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." 26. But then if it were to be so read, the word "also" becomes redundant, and to make sense of the sentence, the section would be required

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Depreciation under section 32 Rs.1,89,824 3.8. The condition precedent to the exercise of the jurisdiction under section 147

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

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereinafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." (Emphasis supplied) What is clear from the above provision is that once assessment is reopened for bringing to tax any income that escaped assessment in terms

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be for the concerned assessment year. However, where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 has been made for relevant assessment year, no action can be taken under section 147

SMT. SHEELA YOGI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 3 & 4 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed

Bench: Him Under Rule 46A Of The Income Tax Act, 1962. 2(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act.

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year)." 26. But then if it were to be so read, the word "also" becomes redundant, and to make sense of the sentence, the section would be required

M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of 'mere change of opinion', which cannot be per se reason to reopen. One must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation on CPP was\nallowed by the AO while framing the assessment under Section 143(3) after conscious\nconsideration of the material on record. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the formation\nof the belief regarding the escapement of the assessment by the AO is based on any new material\ncoming on record. Apparently, the formation

ACIT, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD., KOTA

depreciation and claim of deduction u/s 43B were considered by the Assessing Officer while completing the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) held reopening of the assessment by the AO as merely change of opinion which is bad in law and the order passed u/s 147 read with section

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

147—Assessing Officer observed that from impugned documents it was\r\nseen that assessee had deposited sums with N and both these companies are\r\nspecified persons of assessee—Therefore, Assessing Officer held that these\r\namounts are to be taxed separately at Maximum Marginal Rate in terms of\r\nproviso to Section 164(2)—Total amount was treated

COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-VI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 147 is not satisfied and therefore, the AO doesn’t have any legal basis to acquire jurisdiction over these matters u/s 147 of the Act. 17. Now, coming to claim of depreciation