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)

1) is annulled, the assessment or 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

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

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

reassessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act\nbut a part of an assessment done earlier under the Act.”\n10.5.3 In CIT vs Anderson Marine & Sons (P.) Ltd. 266 [ITR 694] 139\nTaxman 16 (Bombay) (DC) :\n“Section 263, read with section 143, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nRevision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue -Assessment year

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

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.”

263. Thus, the entire such proceedings initiated by the ld. PCIT deserves to the quashed.” 6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: Index S. No. Particulars Page No. Reassessment order under Section 147 read with Section 1

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

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)

1) also. Clearly meaning thereby, that the assessment completed r.w.s. 148B cannot be revised u/s 263. 4(i) Procedure for assessment in Search and Seizure cases : Procedure for assessment in Search and Seizure cases is provided in the Manual of Office Procedure Vol.II (Tech.) published by DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX (ORGANISATION & MANAGEMENT SERVICES) CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES in February

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)

1) also. Clearly meaning thereby, that the assessment completed r.w.s. 148B cannot be revised u/s 263. 4(i) Procedure for assessment in Search and Seizure cases : Procedure for assessment in Search and Seizure cases is provided in the Manual of Office Procedure Vol.II (Tech.) published by DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX (ORGANISATION & MANAGEMENT SERVICES) CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES in February

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

1 of section 263 is not applicable to Assessment Year (2011-12), under consideration. We hold that the order of the CIT passed u/s 263 is bad in law and as such it is quashed. Appeal of assessee allowed. • Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 8 TMI 673 [Compilation 14-17] has held

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) of Section 263\n1.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.\n[2018) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd.- Trib)\n2. Eveready Industries India\nLtd. [2020] 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata\nTrib)\n3. M/s. Smira Pune Food Pvt. Ltd(ITA\nNo.3205/DEL/2017, ITAT Delhi\nBench.\n4. Shri Narayan TatuRane, ITA\nNo2690/Mum/2016, ITAT Mumbai\nBench\nCase was selected for scrutiny for specific purpose\nfor verification of capital gain

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)

263 is unsustainable in law and should be quashed.” 6. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the written submission filed a detailed paper book containing the following evidence / judgments in support of the contentions so raised: S. No. Particulars Page No. 1 Notice u/s 143(2) issued as per CASS dt.10.08.2018 1-4 2. Notice

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1,30,00,385/-which is chargeable to tax has escaped from assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein

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

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

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 275 was substituted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, which came into effect from 1-4-1971. The change was explained by the Board vide Circular No. 56, dated 19-3-1971. Significantly, it postulated that section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time-limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted

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

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

1) 42[, (1A)] and (2), an\norder of fresh assessment 43[or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be,] in\npursuance of an order under section 254 or section 263 or section 264, setting aside or\ncancelling an assessment, 43[or an order under section 92CA, as the case may be], may\nbe made at any time