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

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

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

MRS. RENU SEHGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

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 qfproceedings 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

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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

1) of Section 153A that any proceedings for assessment or reassessment of the assessee which are pending on the date of initiation of the search or making requisition "shall abate". Once those proceedings abate, the decks are cleared, for the Assessing Officer to pass assessment orders for each of those six years determining the total income of the assessee which

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

1) of Section 153A that any proceedings for assessment or reassessment of the assessee which are pending on the date of initiation of the search or making requisition "shall abate". Once those proceedings abate, the decks are cleared, for the Assessing Officer to pass assessment orders for each of those six years determining the total income of the assessee which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

1) of Section 153A that any proceedings for assessment or reassessment of the assessee which are pending on the date of initiation of the search or making requisition "shall abate". Once those proceedings abate, the decks are cleared, for the Assessing Officer to pass assessment orders for each of those six years determining the total income of the assessee which

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

1) of Section 153A that any proceedings for assessment or reassessment of the assessee which are pending on the date of initiation of the search or making requisition "shall abate". Once those proceedings abate, the decks are cleared, for the Assessing Officer to pass assessment orders for each of those six years determining the total income of the assessee which

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

1) of Section 153A that any proceedings for assessment or reassessment of the assessee which are pending on the date of initiation of the search or making requisition "shall abate". Once those proceedings abate, the decks are cleared, for the Assessing Officer to pass assessment orders for each of those six years determining the total income of the assessee which

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

1) of Section 153A that any proceedings for assessment or reassessment of the assessee which are pending on the date of initiation of the search or making requisition "shall abate". Once those proceedings abate, the decks are cleared, for the Assessing Officer to pass assessment orders for each of those six years determining the total income of the assessee which

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

1) of Section 153A that any proceedings for assessment or reassessment of the assessee which are pending on the date of initiation of the search or making requisition "shall abate". Once those proceedings abate, the decks are cleared, for the Assessing Officer to pass assessment orders for each of those six years determining the total income of the assessee which

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

263 CTR (Kar.) 153: (2013) 92 DTR (Kar) 111: (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (SLP) No. 11485 of 2016 dt. 5th Augu. 2016) followed. Conclusion: Considering the fact that the ground mentioned in show cause notice would not satisfy the requirement of law, as notice was not specific, the Tribunal has rightly allowed

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

263 CTR (Kar.) 153: (2013) 92 DTR (Kar) 111: (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar) and CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (SLP) No. 11485 of 2016 dt. 5th Augu. 2016) followed. Conclusion: Considering the fact that the ground mentioned in show cause notice would not satisfy the requirement of law, as notice was not specific, the Tribunal has rightly allowed