RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

234B and initiation of\npenalty u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act by the Ld Assessing Officer.\nThe appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the\ngrounds of the appeal during the course appellate proceedings.\n3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed his\nreturn of income declaring total income at Rs.11

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

reassessment proceedings and in ignoring the fact that the income as per the\nReturn was Rs.97,04,424/- on the pretext that the Return of income was not filed\nwithing the time given in the notice u/s.148 dated 30.03.2021.\n3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the\nassessee company is engaged in the business

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

reassessment proceedings and in ignoring the fact that the income as per the\nReturn was Rs.97,04,424/- on the pretext that the Return of income was not filed\nwithing the time given in the notice u/s.148 dated 30.03.2021.\n3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the\nassessee company is engaged in the business

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

reassesses any income chargeable to tax, which has escaped\r\nassessment for any assessment year, with respect to which he had \"reason to\r\nbelieve\" to be so, then only, in addition, he can also put to tax, the other income,\r\nchargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment. and which has come to his\r\nnotice subsequently

NAVAL KISHORE ,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

reassess taking into consideration the other\nmaterial in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments.\nMeaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no\naddition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating\nmaterial found during the course of search under section 132 or\nrequisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the\ncompleted/unabated assessments can be re-opened

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SH. NAVAL KISHORE, KOTA

reassess taking into consideration the other \nmaterial in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. \nMeaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no \naddition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating \nmaterial found during the course of search under section 132 or \nrequisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the \ncompleted/unabated assessments can be re-opened

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The ld. ITO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The assessee craves your indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

234B as per ITNS-150 issued, which was considered to be part of the order dated 30.11.2017. Furthermore, a demand notice under section 156 was issued in pursuance of the aforesaid order raising the demand of Rs. Rs. 12,81,870/- against the assessee. 6. That, the aforesaid order dated 30.11.2017 passed by the ld. ITO, Behror, was challenged

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

reassessment of the assessee was completed by the AO on 28/12/2018 after disallowing deduction of Rs 94,39,201/- claimed by the assessee under section 54F, in the original assessment. 3.2 Against this order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A) through e-filing on 9/1/2019 along with form No. 35 and Grounds of appeal

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

234B, 234C, 234D & Withdrawal of excess refund u/s 244A. ITNS 150 is part of this order. Notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)© of the Act is issued separately on the issue discussed in para 3.1 of this order for concealment of income/ furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.’’ 16 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR Thus

SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

234B and 234C and penalties under Section 271(1)(C), 271A and 271B. Section 158 BFA provides for levy of interest and penalty in cases of search on or after January 1, 1997. Section 158 BG specifies the authorities competent to make the block assessment. Section 158 BH provides for application of all the other provisions of this Act, except

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

234B and 234C and penalties under Section 271(1)(C), 271A and 271B. Section 158 BFA provides for levy of interest and penalty in cases of search on or after January 1, 1997. Section 158 BG specifies the authorities competent to make the block assessment. Section 158 BH provides for application of all the other provisions of this Act, except

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

reassessment proceeding on the basis of wrong or incorrect\nreason and wrong material are illegal and liable to be quashed.\n2. No income escaped: further it is submitted that the notice u/s 148\ncan be issued only when there is any escape of income because S.\n147 provides that If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an\nincome

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

reassessment\nproceeding u/s 147 and notice under\nsection 148 and all subsequent proceedings and\norders have been issued, conducted, passed without having valid jurisdiction, and\ntherefore, same are bad-in-law and hence, same is quashed-CIT(A) estimated income @\n51.84% on account of undisclosed sales-Assessee claimed that he has shown book net\nbook profit @ 11.45% and in subsequent

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4,00,000/- and made payment of sales\nconsideration in cash also vide sales agreement dated 25.09.1999 duly notarized and\npossession has been taken by the purchaser on that date i.e 25.05.1999. At the time of\nthis agreement and it had been decided by both the parties that registry can be done\nany time when the purchaser required the same

SHRI PARNAMI PANCHAYAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

4. That charging of interest Under Section 234B is illegal.” 2.1. Apropos Ground Nos. 1 to 3 of the assessee, brief facts of the case are that the assessee trust is engaged in running of the temple of Bhagawan Krishana in the name of Krishna Parnami Mandir. The assessee trust, during the year under consideration, earned income from

MOHAMMED SABIR BABUBHAI SHAIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4.\nThe appellant has submitted written submission, which is forwarded to you.\nThe appellant contended that notice u/s 148 has been issued by the Id. AO on\n14.03.2016 but this notice has not been served upon the assessee. The appellant\nfurther urged that the AO has not supplied the copies of reasons recorded u/s 148\nto the assessee

GCK STOCK PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 06/05/2025

4) (5)\n2013-2014\n31.03.2017 TOLA not 31.03.2020 30.06.2021\napplicable\n2014-2015\n31.03.2018 TOLA not 31.03.2021 30.06.2021\napplicable\n2015-2016\n31.03.2019 TOLA not 31.03.2022 TOLA not\napplicable\n2016-2017\n31.03.2020\n30.06.2021\n31.03.2023\nTOLA not\napplicable\n2017-2018\n31.03.2021\n30.06.2021\n31.03.2024\nTOLA not\napplicable\n(f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issuedon or after