SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassess the income in respect to 6 preceding years, however, there must be some incriminating material available with the AO for making addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

reassess the income in respect to 6 preceding years, however, there must be some incriminating material available with the AO for making addition

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassess the income in respect to 6 preceding years, however, there must be some incriminating material available with the AO for making addition

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassess the income in respect to 6 preceding years, however, there must be some incriminating material available with the AO for making addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

reassess the income in respect to 6 preceding years, however, there must be some incriminating material available with the AO for making addition

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

reassessment order was passed u/s 143(3) read with section 148 of the Act wherein certain additions were made to the returned income

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

Income Tax Officer. I. T. A. No. 598/Asr/2015\nvii. ACIT Vs Dinesh kumar (ITAT Delhi) dated 31.10.2014\nviii. Unique Metal Industries Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) dated 28.10.2015\nSection 147 & 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Reassessment\nReassessment proceedings were invalid and bad in law as the reasons\nrecorded were undated which itself proved that the AO had not applied

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)

addition which was made in reassessment proceedings having been deleted by CIT(A) reassessment on heads which were not part of reasons recorded for reopening assessment is not sustainable—Held, in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Versus Income

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

reassess the income in respect to 6 preceding years, however, there must be some incriminating material available with the AO for making addition

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

reassess the income in respect to 6 preceding years, however, there must be some incriminating material available with the AO for making addition

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153A does not say that additions

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

reassessment has assessed the income of Rs. 4,15,32,446/- on protective basis as the substantive addition was made

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

reassess total income for entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. In respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments no addition

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)

reassessment has assessed the income of Rs. 3,04,38,120/- by making an addition of Rs. 2,64,66,445/- on account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

addition in the total income of the assessee which was assessed while passing the assessment order U/s 143(3) of the Act. He has contended that it is settled principles of law that there cannot be a review under the garb of reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

addition in the total income of the assessee which was assessed while passing the assessment order U/s 143(3) of the Act. He has contended that it is settled principles of law that there cannot be a review under the garb of reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

addition in the total income of the assessee which was assessed while passing the assessment order U/s 143(3) of the Act. He has contended that it is settled principles of law that there cannot be a review under the garb of reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

addition in the total income of the assessee which was assessed while passing the assessment order U/s 143(3) of the Act. He has contended that it is settled principles of law that there cannot be a review under the garb of reassessment

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

addition in the total income of the assessee which was assessed while passing the assessment order U/s 143(3) of the Act. He has contended that it is settled principles of law that there cannot be a review under the garb of reassessment