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

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

ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

263 or section 264 is to be given by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] wholly or partly, otherwise than by making a fresh assessment or reassessment

GA INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2

In the result, 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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment, the CIT(A) went beyond adjudication and into administration – a clear illegality. 2.7.vii. In other words, an appellate order’s findings are limited to matters considered by the AO; new sources of income or new proceedings must be dealt with under Sections 147/148 or 263

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment, the CIT(A) went beyond adjudication and into administration – a clear illegality. 2.7.vii. In other words, an appellate order’s findings are limited to matters considered by the AO; new sources of income or new proceedings must be dealt with under Sections 147/148 or 263

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

reassessment that stood abated shall stand revived. 10. Thus on a plain reading of Section 153A of the income-tax Act, it becomes clear that on initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, it is only the assessment/reassessment proceedings that are pending on the date of conducting search under Section 132 or making requisition under Section 132A of the Act stand