OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section u/s 147/148 of 1.T. Act, 1961 & reopened the case. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in upholding the action of Ld. A.O. for reopening of Assessment. 2 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1 , JAIPUR 2. That the Ld. A.O. grossly erred on Law and Facts in not accepting the order of Higher Authorities

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

2) of the Act is a jurisdictional precondition to finalising\nthe reassessment.\n(iv) The onus is on the Revenue to show that proper service of notice has been\neffected under section 148 of the Act on the assessee or an agent duly\nempowered by him to accept notices on his behalf. In the present case, the\nRevenue has failed

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

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)

2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO and FAO for 13 Sh. Kapil Taneja vs. DCIT issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing assessment or reassessment order and it is only FAO which could issue notice under section

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

164(2) as\nthe assesse trust is doing business activities in India but not complying\nstatutory provision of the Act..\nThe AO has denied the benefit u/s 11(2) and 11(1)(a) as claimed by the\nassessee because there are violations as noted by the AO. The major violations\nnoted by the AO are as under\n1. Not filing

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

164(2) as\nthe assesse trust is doing business activities in India but not complying\nstatutory provision of the Act..\n\nThe AO has denied the benefit u/s 11(2) and 11(1)(a) as claimed by the\nassessee because there are violations as noted by the AO. The major violations\nnoted by the AO are as under

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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 Court

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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 Court

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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 Court

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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 Court

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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 Court

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

2, reasons for belief of escapement of income is not as per law considering following facts:  Though reference about receipt of information from investigation wing has been given, no reference has been provided about the nature of information, nature of investigation carried on by the investigation wing and the basis of the allegation, which leads to conclusion that legal transaction

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

164] 11. That the case of the assessee appellant prior to and subsequent to the survey proceeding was regularly selected for the scrutiny assessment / reassessment and details of additions / disallowances made vide assessment orders prior to survey and post survey are as under: Assessment Year Issue under Scrutiny Particulars Paper Book Detail 2010-2011 Claiming Deduction Income Accepted

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

164(2)—Total amount was treated as income by invoking\r\nSection 13(1)(b) read with Section 11(5)—Amount said to have received as\r\ndonation was added back to income of assessee under Section 69А—CIT(A)\r\naffirmed view taken by Assessing Officer except for granting partial relief such\r\nas with regard to claim

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)

164(2)—Total amount was treated as income by invoking Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 11(5)— 11 Shri Pradeep Kumar, Jhunjhunu. Amount said to have received as donation was added back to income of assessee under Section 69A—CIT(A) affirmed view taken by Assessing Officer except for granting partial relief such as with regard to claim

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. 3. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta held in the case of Manoj\nJain (HUF) vs ITO [2024] 164 taxmann.com 133 (Calcutta) upheld the\nfindings of the AO and decision of ITAT in holding that the assessee was\ninvolved in trading shares of certain company and made a bogus long-term\ncapital gain claim. It is also

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

164(2)—\nTotal amount was treated as income by invoking Section 13(1)(b) read with\nSection 11(5)—Amount said to have received as donation was added back to\nincome of assessee under Section 69A—CIT(A) affirmed view taken by\nAssessing Officer except for granting partial relief such as with regard to claim for\ncarry forward of depreciation

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

164(2)—\nTotal amount was treated as income by invoking Section 13(1)(b) read with\nSection 11(5)—Amount said to have received as donation was added back to\nincome of assessee under Section 69A—CIT(A) affirmed view taken by\nAssessing Officer except for granting partial relief such as with regard to claim for\ncarry forward of depreciation

MAYA KUMARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

164(2)—Total amount was treated as\nincome by invoking Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 11(5)—Amount said to have\nreceived as donation was added back to income of assessee under Section 69A—CIT(A)\naffirmed view taken by Assessing Officer except for granting partial relief such as with\nregard to claim for carry forward of depreciation