PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

249 (Amritsar) hold that provisions of sec. 153C of the Act were applicable in the present case for framing the assessment, if any, which excludes the application of sec. 147 of the Act, hence, notice issued under sec. 148 of the Act and assessment framed in furtherance thereto under sec. 147 read with section

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

249 (Amritsar) hold that provisions of sec 153C of the Act are applicable in the present case for framing the assessment, if any, which excludes the application of sec. 147 of the Act, hence, notice issued under section 148 of the Act and assessment framed in furtherance thereto under sec. 147 read with section

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)

4. Surving period available to 1 Day Day Includes only Revenue 30.06.2021 as per para 108,111 &112 of Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 6. Date of Issue of notice u/s 26.07.2022 50 – 55 Beyond the Surving Period 148 under new regime * Notice u/s 148 of the Act should have been issued

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)

4 of the appeal.” A similar view was taken by the Visakhapatnam Bench of this Tribunal in case of G. Koteswara Rao vs. DCIT (supra) in para 11 to 17 as under:- “11. A careful study of section 153A to 153C and also the circular issued by the CBDT explaining the procedure of assessment in search cases, it shows that

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

4 of the appeal.” A similar view was taken by the Visakhapatnam Bench of this Tribunal in case of G. Koteswara Rao vs. DCIT (supra) in para 11 to 17 as under:- “11. A careful study of section 153A to 153C and also the circular issued by the CBDT explaining the procedure of assessment in search cases, it shows that

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

4 of the appeal.” A similar view was taken by the Visakhapatnam Bench of this Tribunal in case of G. Koteswara Rao vs. DCIT (supra) in para 11 to 17 as under:- “11. A careful study of section 153A to 153C and also the circular issued by the CBDT explaining the procedure of assessment in search cases, it shows that

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

4 of the appeal.” A similar view was taken by the Visakhapatnam Bench of this Tribunal in case of G. Koteswara Rao vs. DCIT (supra) in para 11 to 17 as under:- “11. A careful study of section 153A to 153C and also the circular issued by the CBDT explaining the procedure of assessment in search cases, it shows that

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

249\nITR 306 (SC). The sum and substance of the discussion is that reassessment\nproceedings under section 147 read with section 148 of the Act cannot be initiated\nmerely based on the audit report. An audit is principally intended for the purpose of\nsatisfying the auditor with regard to the sufficiency of rules and procedures\nprescribed for the purpose

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

4. It is submitted that during the course of original assessment proceedings the learned AO examined the Books of account including cash book, bank account, stock register and transaction of purchase and sales, and it is after examining the case thoroughly that assessment was completed on returned income. (B) Proceeding under section 148A/148 In this case the learned AO issued

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Reassessment pursuant to material found in search can be done through recourse to section 153C only and not by invoking the provisions of section 147/148. 1.12. The provisions of section 153C are over-riding in nature and contain non obstante clause for sections 139,147,148,149,151 and 153. 1.13. Section 147 and 153C are not interchangeable

BHASKAR CHOUHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIKAR

4) of Shri Rahul Choduhary recorded on 18.01.2017 &\n08.05.2017 who admitted that the accounts of the above three\nconcerns were operated and controlled by him.\n(iv)\nShri Rahul Choudhary further deposed that M/s MurlidharImpex\nProp. Shri BhaskarChouchan was transferred a sum of Rs.\n1,00,00,000/- as accommodation entry and commission @ 1.5 to\n2.5% was earned

RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BEAWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 150(1) is not available to the AO. Thus, the ld. AR has asserted that the AO initiated the reassessment proceeding on the basis of the order passed by this Tribunal on 26.03.2010 whereas the limitation for issuing the notice U/s 148 had already expired on 31.03.2009 hence, reopening of the reassessment is barred by limitation as held

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 147/148 of the Act are not applicable in\nsuch cases. No contrary decision has been brought to our notice. Accordingly, we\nhold that initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 by the AO to reassess the income is\nillegal being without jurisdiction and consequently the reassessment order passed\nu/s 147 r.w.s.143(3) is also illegal and void abinitio and is liable

KAMLA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

4 Kamla Devi Sharma Vs ITO In these grounds of appeal, assessee has challenged the action of Ld. C1T(A) in confirming the action of ld. AO in completing assessment without issuing notice u/s 143(2), which is sine qua non once assessee furnished return of income. Since all these grounds of appeal are inter related, thus have been dealt

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

4) Мини Content\n(20) Ехрочие Condition\n(1) Chousal Adneture\n(3) Degree of Werkability\nValue\nM-35\nOPC-43\nJK\nCrushal Angular\n20\n400\n0.30\nModerate\nFosece Corplast SP-430\nHigh\nUnit\nRelevant IS Codes\nIS-456: 2000, Table 5\nIS:8112-2013\n15:383-1970\nIS-456: 2000, Table 6\nkim IS: 2911(P-1,Section

THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEE'S CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

249 of the IT Act. Hence, we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) on the issue of limitation and hold that the appeal filed before the ld. CIT (A) is within the period of limitation and is a valid appeal. 5. As regards the validity of the order passed under sec. 201/201(1A) of IT Act, we note

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)

4. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) after appreciating the entire facts and circumstances and considering the case of both the parties, dismissed the appeal. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before