URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

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

Reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order: Further clause (6) sub clause (a) to sec 270A further defines UNDER-REPORTED INCOME, for the purpose of this Section Shall not Include- The amount of income in respect of which the assessee offers an explanation and the Assessing Officer or [the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner

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)

dividend and interest income were available with Assessing officer during original assessment proceedings which was concluded under section 143(3) and, further, department did not bring any material facts which was not disclosed in original return of income, impugned reopening notice after four years was unjustified. 5. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income tax appeals has further not justified

AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, ALWAR

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

reassessment and the notice is plainly\nmechanical and stereotype. That the reasons were supplied by the Assessing\nOfficer to assessee on 03.07.2015 which were objected vide letter dated\n09.07.2015 and later on Assessing Officer disposed objection on 26.10.2015. The\ncharacteristic feature of the reasons were re-appraisal of the same material forming\nthe part of original assessment records. Just

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

reassess the earlier\nassessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can't\nusurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision.\nNo overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the\nrevision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

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

reassessment proceedings initiated by notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were not legally transferred by the Chief Commissioner/Director General, Kolkata after recording and communicating the reasons and providing opportunity to the appellant as prescribed u/s 127(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Our submissions:- Without prejudice to the above ground, it would be seen that

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

dividend, the liability to pay tax\nthereon could have only been foisted upon the company which had declared,\ndistributed or paid the same. That in the facts of the present case and even if the\nallegation laid by the respondents were to be accepted would have been GIPL.\n\n15. We also note that the issues emanating from the order

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)

deemed sufficient. It is crucial that the assessing officer's belief is fair and not based on extraneous or fallacious reasoning. 1.4. Before issuing a notice under Section 148, the assessing officer must apply their reasoning skills to draw conclusions from new or existing information. The term "reason to believe" refers to the belief that prompts the assessing officer

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. UDAI BUILDHOME PVT LTD, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1399, 1400, 1401 & 1486/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur बनाम Vs. M/s Udai Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. 302, Golden Sunrise Apartment, Lajpat Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCU 5068 J अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: प्रत्यर्थी / Respond

deemed fit. The information furnished by the Assessee's Counsel was examined and placed on record. 5.2 The ld. AO in the assessment proceeding noted that the assessee has shown unsecured loan from various entities including M/s Inner Merchantile Pvt. Ltd. The year wise detail of the same is tabulated as under: S. No. Related to AY Amount

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. UDAI BUILDHOME PVT LTD, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1399, 1400, 1401 & 1486/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Asstt. Commissioner of Income बनाम M/s Udai Buildhome Pvt. Tax, Vs. Ltd. 302, Golden Sunrise Central Circle-02, Jaipur Apartment, Lajpat Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCU 5068 J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee

deemed fit. The information furnished by the Assessee's Counsel was examined and placed on record. 5.2 The ld. AO in the assessment proceeding noted that the assessee has shown unsecured loan from various entities including M/s Inner Merchantile Pvt. Ltd. The year wise detail of the same is tabulated as under: S. No. Related to AY Amount

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

deemed\nincome u/s 115JB by making adjustment as per explanation 1(f) of\nsection 115JB(2), as per the AO.\n\n5.\nThe ld. CIT(A) has considered the issue in detail and after\nexamination of various facts and issues under consideration and by giving\ndetailed reasoning, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance made u/s\n14A mainly

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

deemed\nincome u/s 115JB by making adjustment as per explanation 1(f) of\nsection 115JB(2), as per the AO.\n\n5. The ld. CIT(A) has considered the issue in detail and after\nexamination of various facts and issues under consideration and by giving\ndetailed reasoning, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance made u/s\n14A mainly

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

reassessment is to be done in two different stages challenging the reasons of reopening and (i) challenging the assessment order. Assessee's challenge to the order of the assessing officer rejecting the objection against the reasons of reopening and assessce's challenge to the assessment order are two separate proceedings. Assessee cannot challenge order of the assessing officer disposing objections

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

reassessment for the limited purpose or issue and on perusal of the entire record or detailed it cannot be said that the ld. AO has not made inquiries. As admittedly the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 on the reason that” on perusal of the ATS data, it is noticed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.50

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALSANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

reassessment for the limited purpose or issue and on perusal of the entire record or detailed it cannot be said that the ld. AO has not made inquiries. As admittedly the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 on the reason that” on perusal of the ATS data, it is noticed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.50

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALASANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

reassessment for the limited purpose or issue and on perusal of the entire record or detailed it cannot be said that the ld. AO has not made inquiries. As admittedly the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 on the reason that” on perusal of the ATS data, it is noticed that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.50

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings. This being the case, the assessment\norder could not be subjected to revision u/s 263 and the action of Ld.\nPr.CIT in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 could not be sustained in the eyes\nof law. Similar is the view of the Tribunal in assessee's group concern i.e.\nM/s Reliance Corporate IT Park

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

deem fit in the interest of justice.\n4.\nWe have heard the contention of the parties and perused the\nmaterials available on record. The prayer by the assessee for\ncondonation of delay of 08 days is that the assessee has filed the\nappeal online which is within the time but they have received the\nemail to file

GOBIND CHHANGOMAL SAJNANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1),JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

deem fit in the interest of justice. 4. We have heard the contention of the parties and perused the materials available on record. The prayer by the assessee for condonation of delay of 08 days is that the assessee has filed the appeal online which is within the time but they have received the email to file

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

reassessment \non the same set of facts.\nPage-93 relying on which the AO has based the addition and treated it to be \nremission of liability is being now relied by Ld.CIT(A) to prove that it was a gift. It \nmay be mentioned that this paper is undated, was never confronted to the \nassessee either during the search