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

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

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

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

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

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

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

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

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

ANUSHA FINVEST PVT LTD ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 147. From the aforesaid notings of the AO in the reasons recorded it is clear that the AO was not sure as to whether income escaped the assessment. Since the word probably has been used, and there was no application of his own mind by the AO who depended only on the information received from the Investigation Wing

SYLVAN GREENS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147. 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 be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

section 147(a). Viewed in that angle, power to reopen assessment is much wider under the amended provision and can be exercised ever . . ITA No. 960/JP/2018 & CO No.05/JP/2020 11 M/s Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust vs. ITO (E) after the assessee has disclosed fully and truly all the material fact." 4.1.5 In the case of Praful Chunilal Patel

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

section 147 of the Act of 1961 is that\nthe income chargeable to tax should escape assessment because of the omission\nor failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts\nnecessary for his assessment. The present is not a case where the assessee had\nomitted or failed to file the return. Question then

PRADEEP KUMAR,JHUJHUNU vs. ITO WARD -2, JHUJHUNU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147—Assessing Officer observed that from impugned documents it was seen that assessee had deposited sums with N and both these companies are specified persons of assessee—Therefore, Assessing Officer held that these amounts are to be taxed separately at Maximum Marginal Rate in terms of proviso to Section 164(2)—Total amount was treated as income by invoking Section