SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

1)(b) read with Section 11(5)—Amount said to have received as\r\ndonation was added back to income of assessee under Section 69А—CIT(A)\r\naffirmed view taken by Assessing Officer except for granting partial relief such\r\nas with regard to claim for carry forward of depreciation etc—Tribunal after\r\ntaking note of factual position

ACIT, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD., KOTA

148 by interalia submitting as under:- (a) As per 2nd proviso to Rule 5(1A), an undertaking engaged in generation or generation and distribution of power, may instead of claiming depreciation on its assets under clause (i) of sec. 32(1) i.e. SLM basis has an option to claim depreciation under clause (ii) of the said section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

148 dated 28.07.2022 Notice u/s 143(2) dated 23.12.2022 Notice u/s 142(1) dated 27.12.2022 Notice u/s. 142(1) dated 07.01.2023 Show Cause notice dated 02.05.2023 8 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO 8.2 In the instant case, the assessee not only responded to the notices u/s. 142(1) and Show Cause Notice dated 07.01.2023 and 02.05.2023, but also, participated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

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

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, SIKAR

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

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

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

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

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

1) of section 34 of the Act of 1922.\nThe language of clause (a) of section 147 read with sections 148 and 149 of the\nAct of 1961 as also the corresponding provisions of the Act of 1922 makes it plain\nthat two conditions have to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer acquires\njurisdiction to issue notice under section

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

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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 :— ITA 437/JP/2017_ 39 DCIT Vs. Vimal Chand Surana (HUF) '16. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

148 as per amended provisions by Finance Act 2021 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme 44-51 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana HC) Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal: Held: It is well settled principle of law that where the power is given to do certain things in certain way, the thing has to be done in that way alone

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)

1,29), which reads as follows : 45 Shri Vimal Chand Surana HUF "7.2 Amendment made by the Amending Act, 1989, to reintroduce the expression 'reason to believe' in section 147.—A number of representations were received against the omission of the words 'reason to believe' from section 147 and their substitution by the 'opinion' of the Assessing Officer