SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

section 263 of the Act is clearly\napplicable and it is clear that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order\nafter making enquiries for verification which ought to have been made in this case.\nHowever, we find that the Pr. CIT has not mentioned in the show-cause notice issued\nunder section 263 that he is going to invoke

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

reassessment,\nthat was passed on 27-12-2007, the claim made by the assessee with\nreference to the provisions of section 72A was disallowed. On 30-4-2009,\nthe Commissioner issued the impugned notice under section 263

SHREE SHYAM BUILDSTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,SIKAR vs. ITO WARD -1, SIKAR

reassessment, come across any other income, independently or of his own and issued notice under section 148 of the Act, then the things would have been otherwise. But, herein, the Assessing Officer, after having reopened the matter only in respect of income of Rs. 11 lacs and having been satisfied by the assessee in respect thereof, did not come across

NARESH KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Section 263. 3.12. In the below mentioned decisions, under identical set of facts, wherein reopening was done and subsequently returned income was accepted, the reassessment

ARUN PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL),, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment. As such no assessment can be made u/s 143(3) r.w. section 148B by AO until and unless, the entire record of assessment and the issues arising during assessment are reviewed by Addl. CIT and proposed assessment order is approved by him. Hence approval u/s 148B from Addl. CIT, tantamount to review by the next higher authority. Thus, orders

ZARI SILK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment. As such no assessment can be made u/s 143(3) r.w. section 148B by AO until and unless, the entire record of assessment and the issues arising during assessment are reviewed by Addl. CIT and proposed assessment order is approved by him. Hence approval u/s 148B from Addl. CIT, tantamount to review by the next higher authority. Thus, orders

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMUCH vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings. This being the case, the assessment order could not be subjected to revision u/s 263 and the action of Ld. Pr.CIT in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 could not be sustained in the eyes of law. Similar is the view of the Tribunal in assessee’s group concern i.e. M/s Reliance Corporate IT Park

VIPUL KUMAR MODI ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR -I

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

sections 144B of the Act dated 23.03.2022. 2 Vipul Kumar Modi vs. PCIT 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1 Ground1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax grossly erred in passing an order u/s. 263 of the Act and in holding that

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

section 10AA(iv)(iii) of the Act. 14. That the assessee appellant filed detailed reply dated 15.03.2021 [PB- I, Pg. 15-19] and objected to the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act and highlighted that: " the issue was considered in detail in the regular assessment, reassessments

SHREE AURO IRON LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263.\nIn view of the above factual and legal position, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in\nassuming jurisdiction u/s 263. Thus, the entire order by ld.PCIT deserves to be\nquashed\"\nGROUND No. 3:\nThat on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Principal\nCommissioner of Income-tax erred in passing the impugned order u/s.263

LAXMI NARAYAN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

263. It is further submitted that as per section 5(3) of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, every order passed under sub section 5(1), determining the amount payable under this Act shall be conclusive as to the matter stated therein and no matter covered by such order reopened in any proceedings under the Income

SHRI HARI RAM YADAV,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income ...”. Thus it is evident that whereas section 148 specifically requires serving a notice on the assessee, section 263

BARODA RAJASTHAN KHESTRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 263, ensuring that reassessments are grounded in concrete evidence rather than speculative dissatisfaction. The decision is a crucial reminder

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of [sub-section (1) of] section 153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner:]\n18.1

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263 cannot be invoked.'\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in Moil Ltd. Vs. CIT [81 Taxmann.com 420]\nobserved that if a query is raised during the assessment proceedings\nwhich was responded to by the assessee, the mere fact that the query\nwas not dealt with in the assessment order then it would not lead to a\nconclusion that

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LTD ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) JAIPUR , JAIPUR

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing\nOfficer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year\nreferred to in clause (b) of [sub-section (1) of] section 153A or the assessment\nyear referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the\nprior approval of the Joint Commissioner:]\n18.1

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Sections 139 (return of income), 139(5) (revised return of income), 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that as the first proviso provides for assessment or reassessment

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Sections 139 (return of income), 139(5) (revised return of income), 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that as the first proviso provides for assessment or reassessment