INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

reassessment under Sections 139,147,148,149,151 & 153. " In view of the above discussion, the assessment completed u/s 144 deserves to be quashed. The order of the Learned CIT(A) also deserved to be quashed on this ground. Additional Ground No.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

158 BC, such reference is conspicuous by its\nabsence in Section 153A. Section 153A only states that an assessment in terms\nthereof shall be completed in terms of the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nas if such retum were a return required to be furnished under section 139.\n\n23. It would thus suffice that in framing

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

158) which is extracted from the mobile of the assessee noted that assessee has made investment in the construction of the house of Rs.3,04,890/-. The assessee vide letter dt.19.09.2021 (PB 1-5, point no. 3) explained that the construction expenditure is in respect of construction of boundary wall on Plot No.33, 34 & 35 which is owned by assessee

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

158) which is extracted from the mobile of the assessee noted that assessee has made investment in the construction of the house of Rs.3,04,890/-. The assessee vide letter dt.19.09.2021 (PB 1-5, point no. 3) explained that the construction expenditure is in respect of construction of boundary wall on Plot No.33, 34 & 35 which is owned by assessee

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

158) which is extracted from the mobile of the assessee noted that assessee has made investment in the construction of the house of Rs.3,04,890/-. The assessee vide letter dt.19.09.2021 (PB 1-5, point no. 3) explained that the construction expenditure is in respect of construction of boundary wall on Plot No.33, 34 & 35 which is owned by assessee

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

158) which is extracted from the mobile of the assessee noted that assessee has made investment in the construction of the house of Rs.3,04,890/-. The assessee vide letter dt.19.09.2021 (PB 1-5, point no. 3) explained that the construction expenditure is in respect of construction of boundary wall on Plot No.33, 34 & 35 which is owned by assessee

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

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassessment, if any, for such assessment year has been\nmade.\nThese amendments have been brought into effect retrospectively from 1st June,\n2003.\"\n(emphasis supplied)\nAs per the CBDT Gircular also, in case of section 163C of the Act, assessments\nof the preceding six years as pending on the date on which books of account or\ndocuments or assets seized

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

reassessment, if any, for such assessment year has been \nmade.\nThese amendments have been brought into effect retrospectively from 1st June, \n2003.\"\n(emphasis supplied)\nAs per the CBDT Gircular also, in case of section 163C of the Act, assessments \nof the preceding six years as pending on the date on which books of account or \ndocuments or assets seized

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassessment, if any, for such assessment year has been \nmade.\n\nThese amendments have been brought into effect retrospectively from 1st June, \n2003.\"\n\n(emphasis supplied)\n\nAs per the CBDT Gircular also, in case of section 163C of the Act, assessments \nof the preceding six years as pending on the date on which books of account or \ndocuments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate.\" What is clear from this is that Section 153A

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

158 ITR 965 (CHD)(TRIB)\n“Where Assessing Officer processed under section 143(1) returns of income filed\nby assessee for assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04 and subsequently he\nreopened said assessments on sole basis that assessee had not filed returns for\nyears preceding to assessment year 2004-05 and, therefore, its income having\nescaped assessment, reopening

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)

reassessment into two stages and when viewed in that light allocation. The distribution of functions between the JAO and NFAC is complimentary and concurrent as contemplated under the various schemes and the statutory provisions. This balanced distribution underscores the legislative intent to create a seamless integration of traditional and faceless assessment mechanisms within a unified statutory framework This

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)

reassessment into two stages and when viewed in that light allocation. The distribution of functions between the JAO and NFAC is complimentary and concurrent as contemplated under the various schemes and the statutory provisions. This balanced distribution underscores the legislative intent to create a seamless integration of traditional and faceless assessment mechanisms within a unified statutory framework This

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate.” What is clear from this is that Section 153A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment, if any, relating to\nany assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to\nin this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section\n132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall\nabate.\" What is clear from this is that Section 153A

SUNIL KUMAR GATTANI,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 7

reassessment is passed\npursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of section 153D and\nthat such approval is not meant to be given mechanically and while elaborate\nreasons need not be given, but there has to be some indication that approving\nauthority has examined draft orders and finds that it meets requirement of law\nHigh Court further held

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

section 148, reopening of 8 assessment was invalid - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be dismissed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] Search and Seizure-Procedure for black Assessment- Search was conducted at residential and business premises of Assessee and notice for block assessment u/s. 158-BC was issued- For block period, returns were filed that