DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner: 3 Thus, in view of the above, it is submitted that if no scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3144 of the Act was made earlier

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner: 3 Thus, in view of the above, it is submitted that if no scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3144 of the Act was made earlier

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

reassessment proceedings initiated for the Assessment Years 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 it was alleged that assessee is transferring semi-finished goods from the Mahapura Unit (DTA unit) to SEZ unit and that SEZ unit did not make any addition on the goods, ratio of expenses incurred at DTA unit is more than SEZ Unit, etc. That disallowance

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance or addition made in the reassessment proceeding. Since we have allowed the appeal on the technical ground these grounds

VIKAS DUGAR L/H OF LATE SHRI KESHARI SINGH DUGAR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

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

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

reassessed the income of the assessee by making the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) as well as u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act without

VIKAS DUGAR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI KESHARI SINGH DUGAR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

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

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

reassessed the income of the assessee by making the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) as well as u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act without

VIKAS DUGAR L/H OF LATE SHRI KESHARI SINGH DUGAR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”

reassessed the income of the assessee by making the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) as well as u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act without

SOYALA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,TONK vs. ITO, TONK, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassess the income in respect of any issue which has escaped assessment and such issues which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under this section. The second limb of this proviso i.e. for assessing other issues can only be invoked if first limb is satisfied i.e. when an addition/ disallowance

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

reassessment of the assessee was completed by the AO on 28/12/2018 after disallowing deduction of Rs 94,39,201/- claimed

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

disallowance of\nexpense of Rs.8,00,000 done by the Ld. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota.\nCopies of both the orders, i.e. appeal order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) and reassessment

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

reassess issues other than issues in respect of which proceedings were initiated - Held, yes - Whether, however, since Assessing Officer had not made any disallowance

AMROS ENGINEERING PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(4), JPR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

disallowing loss on sale of shares. Further, it is settled law that if Ld. AO does not assess or reassess

SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1383/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Sonkia Bhawan, Sms, Highway, Ward-1(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.O., Cuke Shri Sunder Das Sonkhiya, Vs. Ward-1(2), Prop.- M/S Naveen Jewellers, Jaipur. Sonkhiya Bhawan, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & The Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Arise Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 08/11/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee & The Revenue Are As Under:

reassessment order by rejecting books of accounts of assessee and invoked provisions of section 145 (3) of the Act and disallowed

APOORVA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

reassessment based on such notice deserves to be quashed. Since the assessment itself has been quashed the other ad-hoc disallowance

ANJU MEEL,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 3(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings under sec. 147 of Act. 2. Without prejudice to ground No. (1) above, ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining disallowance

KAILASH CHAND,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of the nature alleged, was called for). 1.4 This contention is further fortified by the facts that during the course of the reassessment

MODERN INSULATORS LIMITED ,ABU ROAD vs. ITO(TJ)O-O THE PR. CIT-2,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalmodern Insulators Limited, A-4, Vijay Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur 302 004 Pan No.: Aabcm 0860G ...... Appellant Vs.

disallowance confirmed is illegal, unjustified & excessive. 2 Modern Insulators Limited 2. That the learned CIT-'A' has erred in holding that the appellant has raised contentions on the merits of the additions made in the original or the initial assessment order in the present appeal whereas the present appeal is against the order passed in the reassessment

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

reassessment,\nthat was passed on 27-12-2007, the claim made by the assessee with\nreference to the provisions of section 72A was disallowed