RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 148 of the Act, have been duly served on the address of the appellant and none of the notices have returned back. As noted from the assessment order, the AO has issued multiple notices and show cause notices which were duly served on the assessee. Following notices issued by the AO Notice u/s 148 dated 28.07.2022 Notice

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

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

148 of the Income Tax Act. 11. Our stand is further fortified by the decision of this Court in TCA No.217/2015 dated 2.6.2015, wherein in a similar matter, this Court has held as under :— Shri Madho Lal Saini and Others. '16. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case

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

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

148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any\nother income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes\nto his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or\nrecompute the loss or the depreciation

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

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

148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any\nother income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes\nto his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or\nrecompute the loss or the depreciation

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

148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any\nother income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes\nto his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or\nrecompute the loss or the depreciation

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)

148 of the Income Tax Act. 11. Our stand is further fortified by the decision of this Court in TCA No.217/2015 dated 2.6.2015, wherein in a similar matter, this Court has held as under :— '16. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

148 by the Pr. CIT, only the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO are available. Considering this it can be said that report of investigation wing was not considered by the Range head while moving forward reasons to the Pr. CIT and by Pr. CIT while granting permission of issuance of reason.  With reference to the allegation of fictious transactions

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\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148

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)

depreciation of Rs.10,77,958/-. The assessee was required to subtract the subsidy amount from the assets to ascertain the WDV assets. Accordingly, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after recording the reasons for reopening and obtaining approval from the competent authority. 2.2 The notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and duly served

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)

148 of the LT Act, 1961. No cognizance is taken and assessment is completed under section 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Notices under section 142(1) of the IT. Act, 1961 alongwith query letter were issued. In response thereto, Shri Narendra Kumar Goswami, Advocate and Authorized Representative of the society attended the proceeding from time to time and furnished

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

Section 153A/153C\nwere struck down due to absence of incriminating material. This administrative\ninstructions are not binding on quasi-judicial authorities like the CIT(A). It is a\nsettled principle of law, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UCO Bank v.\nCIT [(1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC)] (CLC 41-49), that CBDT circulars or instructions\ncannot override

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation allowance or any other\nallowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in\nthis section and in sections 148

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

148 is supplementary and\ncomplimentary to s.147. Sub-s. (2) of s.148 mandates reasons for issuance of\nnotice by the AO and sub-s. (1) thereof mandates service of notice to the assessee\nbefore the AO proceeds to assess, reassess or recomputed escaped income. Sec.\n147 mandates recording of reasons to believe by the AO that the income\nchargeable

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

148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other\r\nincome chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to\r\nhis notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or re-\r\ncompute the loss or the depreciation

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

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254\nof the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any\ndirection on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides\nseparate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with\nescaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

148 after the receipt\nof reasons but the Id. AO has not passed any speaking order rejecting the\nobjections, which is contrary to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case\nof GKN Driveshaft (1) Ltd. reported in 259 ITR 19 and thus reassessment\nproceedings deserves to be held illegal and consequent reassessment order\npassed deserves

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