SHRI SHRAVAN CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

reassessment deserved to have been quashed. 2 Shri Shravan Choudhary, Jaipur. 2. That in the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law ld. Lower authority grossly erred in making addition of Rs. 7,48,07,150/- as deemed dividend

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

deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return of income on 29.12.2012. The time limit for service of notice u/s 143(2) for the relevant AY was upto 30.09.2013. No notice was issued to the assessee before this date. Thus, the assessment proceedings for the year

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

deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return of income on 29.12.2012. The time limit for service of notice u/s 143(2) for the relevant AY was upto 30.09.2013. No notice was issued to the assessee before this date. Thus, the assessment proceedings for the year

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

deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return of income on 29.12.2012. The time limit for service of notice u/s 143(2) for the relevant AY was upto 30.09.2013. No notice was issued to the assessee before this date. Thus, the assessment proceedings for the year

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

deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return of income on 29.12.2012. The time limit for service of notice u/s 143(2) for the relevant AY was upto 30.09.2013. No notice was issued to the assessee before this date. Thus, the assessment proceedings for the year

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

deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return of income on 29.12.2012. The time limit for service of notice u/s 143(2) for the relevant AY was upto 30.09.2013. No notice was issued to the assessee before this date. Thus, the assessment proceedings for the year

SHRI VIKRAM SUKHANI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

deemed dividend U/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The AO completed the reassessment U/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the act by making

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return of income on 20.12.2013. The time limit for service of notice u/s 143(2) for the relevant AY was upto 30.09.2014. No notice was issued to the assessee before this date. Thus, the assessment proceedings for the year

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return of income on 20.12.2013. The time limit for service of notice u/s 143(2) for the relevant AY was upto 30.09.2014. No notice was issued to the assessee before this date. Thus, the assessment proceedings for the year

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

deemed dividend but upheld addition respect of sum declared as gifts by the assessee. The assessee challenged validity of assessment made u/s 153A on the ground that no assessment respect of the assessment years was pending so as have abated. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission and held that incriminating material having been found during the course of search

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

deemed to have been examined and relief granted in favour of the assessee by the Assessing Officer and the finding recorded by the Commissioner to the contrary was not correct? ” and the Hon’ble High Court ruled in affirmation to the question stating that “….The Tribunal has held that mere inadequacy of an enquiry or insufficiency of material on record

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

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GODAWARI ESTATES PVT. LTD.,

reassessing the completed assessment. Assessee’s appeal fails in Gr No 1. 3.2 Ground No. 2 & 3: “Regarding addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- made by applying the provisions of section 56(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 treating the share capital and premium thereon received from various companies as income of the assessee.” 3.2.1 Submission made: Relevant extracts

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