SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 151A (iii) Notice u/s 148 being issued without mentioning DIN. (iv) Since the reopening is done on the basis of information received during the course of search at third party, than it should be done as per the provisions of 153C of the Act. (v) Reassessment is completed without disposing the objection raised by the assessee. (vi) Reassessment

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings were initiated but nothing was provided except the screen shot. The ld. AO (Faceless Assessment Unit) considered such alleged accommodation entry for Rs. 1.37 Crore as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and taxed the same in terms of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 1ST Appeal The assessment order so passed by assessment unit was appealed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

reassessment of total income or loss of assessee. [Notification No. 18/2022/F. No. 370142/16/2022-TPL(Part1] SHEFALI SINGH, Under Secy.” Keeping in view the afore said provisions of section 144B(5) and section 151A and Notification S O 1466E dated 29.05.2022 the issuance of notice under section 148 in the case of assessee on 29.03.2022 by the jurisdictional Income Tax officer 1

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1) and (2) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the challenge to the notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2024 for A.Y. 2021-2022 on the sole premise that the said notice could have been issued only through automated allocation in faceless manner and not by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), cannot

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1) and (2) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the challenge to the notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2024 for A.Y. 2021-2022 on the sole premise that the said notice could have been issued only through automated allocation in faceless manner and not by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), cannot

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

1 Jaipur and not through automated allocation as provided in Notification No. 18/2022, dated 29-3-2022 r.w.s. 151A, which is not in accordance with provisions of section 151A of the Act and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Thus in view of above, it is noted that initiation of reassessment

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

reassessment, re-computation or\nissuance or sanction of notice with dynamic jurisdiction.\n\nFurther in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) of section 151A

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment on the preliminary legal ground of jurisdiction, various other grounds raised by the assessee on merits are not decided as they become only academic at this stage. Ground nos. 1 to 5 are allowed.” Also the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.07.2022 is bad in law for the following reasons: 1. The notice

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225\n(Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO\nand FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing\nassessment or reassessment order and it is only FAO which could issue notice\nunder section 148 and not JAO.\nHon'ble Bombay High

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225\n(Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO\nand FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing\nassessment or reassessment order and it is only FAO which could issue notice\nunder section 148 and not JAO.\nHon'ble Bombay High

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225\n(Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO\nand FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing\nassessment or reassessment order and it is only FAO which could issue notice\nunder section 148 and not JAO.\nHon'ble Bombay High

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225\n(Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO\nand FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing\nassessment or reassessment order and it is only FAO which could issue notice\nunder section 148 and not JAO.\nHon'ble Bombay High

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225\n(Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO\nand FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing\nassessment or reassessment order and it is only FAO which could issue notice\nunder section 148 and not JAO.\nHon'ble Bombay High

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. HEM CHAND JAIN, JAIPUR

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

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

Section 151A of Act is reproduced as under:- Faceless assessment of income escaping assessment 151A. (1) The Central Government may make a scheme, by notification in the Official Gazette, for the purposes of assessment, reassessment

NISHA MUKESH KUMAR JAIN,BHILWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1, BEAWER, BEAWER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

151A of the Act; The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and/or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 3. At the outset of the hearing the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the additional ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is not pressed and submitted that the additional ground no 1

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

151A of the Act. Hence proceedings as well\nas the impugned notice deserves to be quashed. Moreover, the assessment proceeding\nconsequent thereto also deserves to quashed.\n1. 3. The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the\nAct dated 01.03.2023 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1) Kandoi Metal Powder Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2022) Vol. 19 ITR OL 787 (Raj): Reassessment. Notice, Change of law. Insertion of new provisions by Finance Act 2021. Imposition of stringent conditions for issuance of notice for reassessment. Failure to follow required procedure. Notice invalid. (2) Studio Virtues Vs. I.T.O. (2022) Vol 20 ITR OL 216 (Guj): Reassessment