DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

reassessment, which had\nalready become barred by time under section 149 before 1-4-1989, could not have\nbeen commenced on the amended provisions of sub-section (1) of section 150

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

reassessment, which had\nalready become barred by time under section 149 before 1-4-1989, could not have\nbeen commenced on the amended provisions of sub-section (1) of section 150

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

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

reassessment, which had\nalready become barred by time under section 149 before 1-4-1989, could not have\nbeen commenced on the amended provisions of sub-section (1) of section 150

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

reassessment, which had\nalready become barred by time under section 149 before 1-4-1989, could not have\nbeen commenced on the amended provisions of sub-section (1) of section 150

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

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

reassessment, which had\nalready become barred by time under section 149 before 1-4-1989, could not have\nbeen commenced on the amended provisions of sub-section (1) of section 150

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

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

reassessment, which had\nalready become barred by time under section 149 before 1-4-1989, could not have\nbeen commenced on the amended provisions of sub-section (1) of section 150

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

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

reassessment, which had\nalready become barred by time under section 149 before 1-4-1989, could not have\nbeen commenced on the amended provisions of sub-section (1) of section 150

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

reassessment, which had\nalready become barred by time under section 149 before 1-4-1989, could not have\nbeen commenced on the amended provisions of sub-section (1) of section 150

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ANIMESH AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

reassessment, which had\nalready become barred by time under section 149 before 1-4-1989, could not have\nbeen commenced on the amended provisions of sub-section (1) of section 150

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. 2.4 It is also further submitted that as per provisions of section 150 (2) the provisions of section 150 (1

RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BEAWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment or re-computation of income of the assessee but the same is subject to the conditions as prescribed Sub-section (2) of Section 150 of the Act. Sub-section (2) puts a condition that unlimited time period provided Under sub-section (1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings in accordance with law, if permissible.” This is a conditional observation, contingent on statutory compliance—not a binding directive or judicial mandate. Such general remarks cannot be elevated to the status of a “finding” or “direction” within the meaning of Section 150(1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings in accordance with law, if permissible.” This is a conditional observation, contingent on statutory compliance—not a binding directive or judicial mandate. Such general remarks cannot be elevated to the status of a “finding” or “direction” within the meaning of Section 150(1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, JAIPUR

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

reassessment proceedings\nunder Section 147/148, invoking Section 150 and relying on CBDT Instruction No.\n1/2023, exceeding his statutory appellate jurisdiction under Sections 250/251 of the Act\nand accordingly, these directions are legally non-est and ought to be expunged/\nquashed.\n2. SUBMISSIONS:\n2. 1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

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

reassessment proceedings\nunder Section 147/148, invoking Section 150 and relying on CBDT Instruction No.\n1/2023, exceeding his statutory appellate jurisdiction under Sections 250/251 of the Act\nand accordingly, these directions are legally non-est and ought to be expunged/\nquashed.\n\n2. SUBMISSIONS:\n\n2. 1

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)

reassessments contemplated under section 153A. There is also no requirement under section 153A and other provisions requiring the Department to collect information and evidence for each and every year for six previous years under section 153A. Therefore, the argument of assessee that the information gathered either during pre-search enquiry or during the course of search cannot be made

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)

reassessments contemplated under section 153A. There is also no requirement under section 153A and other provisions requiring the Department to collect information and evidence for each and every year for six previous years under section 153A. Therefore, the argument of assessee that the information gathered either during pre-search enquiry or during the course of search cannot be made