SH. KESAR LAL BAIRWA,A-24, VARUN COLONY, MANDARA STAND, NEW SANGANER ROAD, MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

exempt. The AO, in the reassessment proceedings rejected the claim of assessee that the amount so received being capital receipt

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

exemption or\nclaim or deduction can be made, for this kindly refer following decisions:\n(a) In the case of CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh 306 ITR 0343 (Raj.) he Hon'ble High\nCourt Of Rajasthan Held that It is only when, in proceedings under s.147 the AO\nassesses or reassesses

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

exemption or\nclaim or deduction can be made, for this kindly refer following decisions:\n(a) In the case of CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh 306 ITR 0343 (Raj.) he Hon'ble High\nCourt Of Rajasthan Held that It is only when, in proceedings under s.147 the AO\nassesses or reassesses

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)

EXEMPTION) vs. B.P. Poddar Foundation For Education Sep 13, 2022 (2022) 115 CCH 0026 KolHC Reassessment— Reopening of assessment—Assessee

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)

reassessment proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of ld. AO of not allowing exemption

SONU AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act and addition of Rs. 49,552/- on account of commission] Since the initiation of reassessment

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

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment order was passed without disposing of assessee’s objections to reopening of assessment and without passing a speaking order, same was unjustified. Court also held that where claim of assessee of exemption

SUSHILA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

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

exempted under the Income Tax Act.\nOf course, it may be desirable, from the point of view of revenue\nauthorities, to examine the matter in detail, but then reassessment

SPECTRUM FOODS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

exempt under section 10(38), since said transactions of sale and purchase of shares were admitted by assessee and it had not brought on record anything to suggest that reassessment

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

exempt under section 10(38), since said transactions of sale and purchase of shares were admitted by assessee and it had not brought on record anything to suggest that reassessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER , EXEMPTION, WARD, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

Exemptions) had an opportunity to verify any separate claim, which was exercised by the Ld AO and provided the effect of the Ld CIT order after verifying all the facts of the case and reassessing

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

exemption is found correct and justified. Since the very basis of proceeding is non-existent and found to be non-existent despite there being lack of approval under the law, therefore, reassessment

SHRI KBL SHARMA MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL SOCIETY,DEFENCE PUBLIC SCHOOL, E-BLOCK, AMRAPALI CIRCLE, VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-1,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment order there is no discussion for not allowing the application of income but in the computation the same has been left to be included. Before the 5 SHRI KBL SHARMA MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL SOCIETY VS ITO (EXEMPTION

ALL INDIA SECURITISATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF SECURITY INTEREST ASSOCIATION,CHITRANJAN MARG vs. CIT EXEMPTION, KAILASH HEIGHT,

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

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

Exemptions), Ward-1, Jaipur vide I.T.A. No.\n14/JPR/2023 order Pronounced on 18/08/2023 vide PB No. 42-61:\n\n\"Although the assessee trust, since past many years was registered under Section 12AA of the Act,\nhowever, such certificate during the course of reassessment

SMT. SUDHA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no orders to cost

reassessment for the verification. 3. It is submitted that the AO has incorrectly mentioned while disposing the objection of assessee that assessee has not declared the long term capital gain in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 whereas in this return assessee has shown exempt

VIPUL KUMAR MODI ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR -I

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment order passed by the Id. Assessing Officer u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act is found to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2 2. That the Id. Principal Commissioner of Income- tax grossly erred in treating the exempt

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

exemption is barred as per section 10AA(iv)(iii) of the Act. 14. That the assessee appellant filed detailed reply dated 15.03.2021 [PB- I, Pg. 15-19] and objected to the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act and highlighted that: " the issue was considered in detail in the regular assessment, reassessments