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

151A and CBDT Notification dated 29.03.222 are Quoted/scanned below- (i) Section 144B(5) “144B. 6[(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other provision of this Act, the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under sub-section (3) of section 143 or under section 144 or under section 147, as the case may be, with respect to the cases referred

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

151A of the Act and the\nsame deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is thus prayed that the\nconsequential order passed u/s 147 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.\n2. Re Assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 completed without issuing notice_u/s\n143(2) of the Act\nIn this regard, it is submitted that

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

151A of the Act and the\nsame deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is thus prayed that the\nconsequential order passed u/s 147 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.\n2. Re Assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 completed without issuing notice_u/s\n143(2) of the Act\nIn this regard, it is submitted that

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

151A of the Act and the\nsame deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is thus prayed that the\nconsequential order passed u/s 147 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.\n2. Re Assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 completed without issuing notice_u/s\n143(2) of the Act\nIn this regard, it is submitted that

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

151A of the Act and the\nsame deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is thus prayed that the\nconsequential order passed u/s 147 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.\n2. Re Assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 completed without issuing notice_u/s\n143(2) of the Act\nIn this regard, it is submitted that

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

151A of the Act and the\nsame deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is thus prayed that the\nconsequential order passed u/s 147 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.\n2. Re Assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 completed without issuing notice_u/s\n143(2) of the Act\nIn this regard, it is submitted that

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

disallowance of the deduction under Section 80P was not justified solely because the return was filed belatedly. Referring to various judicial precedents and circulars, it was noted that the provisions of Section 80AC, as amended from time to time, and the applicability of Section 143(1)(a)(v) did not support the denial of deduction in this case, especially considering

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

151A, to impart greater efficiency, transparency and accountability by applying artificial intelligence, technological innovations, etc., but as of now, from a careful reading of the notification dated 29.03.2022, along with the statutory provisions, we find that the aforesaid notification does not cover a case where notice under Section 148 is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) the information received

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

151A, to impart greater efficiency, transparency and accountability by applying artificial intelligence, technological innovations, etc., but as of now, from a careful reading of the notification dated 29.03.2022, along with the statutory provisions, we find that the aforesaid notification does not cover a case where notice under Section 148 is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) the information received

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

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 in instant case impugned proceedings under section 148A as well as\nconsequential notice

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed under section 69C despite banking transactions. The appellant also relied on certain decisions including CIT v. Sunrise ToolingSystems (2014) 361 ITR 206 (Del) and Pr. CIT v. Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. (2020) 423 ITR 220 (Bom), which are distinguishable on facts. Those cases involved parties where the suppliers were traceable, transactions were verified, and books were not rejected

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. HEM CHAND JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

disallowance made by the Ld. AO deserves to be deleted. In view of the decisions on merit, the legal issues raised were not decided. 7 ITA No.670/JPR/2025 & CO No. 24/JPR/2025 Hem Chand Jain, Jaipur Submission:- 1. The assessee rely on detailed submission made before AO and Ld. CIT(A), NFAC and the decision of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC in deleting

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance of expenses or unrecorded expenses is not covered by the term ‘assets’ as defined explanation to section 149 of the Act as the explanation to section 149 stood as on the date of issue of notice u/s 148 which in the instants case is 21.04.2021. It is submitted that, CBDT through instruction u/s 119 dt. 10.12.2021, with regard

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

151A of the Income tax Act, 1961. Therefore the whole proceedings are liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on Hexaware 18 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO Technologies Ltd. v/s ACIT and others (464 ITR 430) (Mumbai HC) , Kairos Properties P Ltd. v/s ACIT and Others (241 DTR 97) (Mumbai HC) and Nava Diganta Builders and Others

RITU DHAKA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(4), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: -

disallowances, the assessee would be given a fair opportunity to explain his position on the proposed additions/disallowances in accordance with the principle of natural justice. In this regard, the Assessing Officer shall issue an 10 Ritu Dhaka vs. ITO appropriate show-cause notice duly indicating the reasons for the proposed additions/disallowances along with necessary evidences/reasons forming the basis

M/S. SUMS EXIM PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 40A(3). Hence the ground of disallowance is bad in facts. B. Office Expenses Rs. 276966/- paper Book page no. 167 to 258. 1. Daily wages of Rs. 1,74,587 is paid to tiny workers and therefore on vouchers but the signatures of all labours are available. 2. Freight & Cartages of Rs. 52089/- vehicle number is available

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

151A of the Act. Hence proceedings as well\nas the impugned notice deserves to be quashed. Moreover, the assessment proceeding\nconsequent thereto also deserves to quashed.\n1. 3. The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the\nAct dated 01.03.2023 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

151A r.w.s 144B of the Act,\nmandating for the Id. AO to complete the proceeding in faceless manner only as\nagainst done manually and hence, the same deserves to be quashed.\n“10. The Id. AO further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in imposing\ntax, surcharge, cess etc. as per provision of S.115BBE