FARMAN KHAN,CHAKSU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessed u/s 147 /144B vide order dated 27.03.2023, by the Faceless Assessing officer (FAO) at the Returned Income itself.In other words, all transactionswere found disclosed and the explanations were accepted, and so no unaccounted income /Black money or evasion of tax was found by the FAO.A copy of the assessment order A.Y. 2018-19 is enclosed (As Annexure

AMIT JAIN,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment u/s 148 and notices were issued. In response, the assessee submitted the reply. The details of the notices issued and replied by the assessee were as under: Date of notice Under Issued By Response due dates Reply submitted Section on 09.02.2023 ITO, Pune-13(2) 01.03.2023 22.02.2023 148A 29.03.2023 148 ITO, Pune-13(2) 14.04.2023 11.10.2023 142(1) Faceless

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

reassessed or recomputed in\na preceding order as if it were the total income; and\nY = the amount of tax calculated on the total income determined under\nclause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 or total income assessed\nreassessed or recomputed in a preceding order.\n(11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

reassessed or recomputed in\na preceding order as if it were the total income; and\nY = the amount of tax calculated on the total income determined under\nclause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143 or total income assessed\nreassessed or recomputed in a preceding order.\n(11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis

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)

271B. Section 158 BFA provides for levy of interest and penalty in cases of search on or after January 1, 1997. Section 158 BG specifies the authorities competent to make the block assessment. Section 158 BH provides for application of all the other provisions of this Act, except those as provided in Chapter XIV-B. Section 158 BI provides

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

271B of the Act but for that reason addition to income is not justified. 2. Otherwise also, section 44AD applies where the turnover of assessee does not exceed Rs.2 crore. In the present case, turnover exceeds Rs.2 crores. Hence the n.p. rate of 8% applied by the lower authorities is not justified more particularly when they have not found

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

271B of the Act but for that reason addition to income is not justified. 2. Otherwise also, section 44AD applies where the turnover of assessee does not exceed Rs.2 crore. In the present case, turnover exceeds Rs.2 crores. Hence the n.p. rate of 8% applied by the lower authorities is not justified more particularly when they have not found

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271B of the Act but for that reason addition to income is not justified. 2. Otherwise also, section 44AD applies where the turnover of assessee does not exceed Rs.2 crore. In the present case, turnover exceeds Rs.2 crores. Hence the n.p. rate of 8% applied by the lower authorities is not justified more particularly when they have not found

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

271B of the Act but for that reason addition to income is not justified. 2. Otherwise also, section 44AD applies where the turnover of assessee does not exceed Rs.2 crore. In the present case, turnover exceeds Rs.2 crores. Hence the n.p. rate of 8% applied by the lower authorities is not justified more particularly when they have not found

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271B of the Act but for that reason addition to income is not justified. 2. Otherwise also, section 44AD applies where the turnover of assessee does not exceed Rs.2 crore. In the present case, turnover exceeds Rs.2 crores. Hence the n.p. rate of 8% applied by the lower authorities is not justified more particularly when they have not found

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

271B of the Act but for that reason addition to income is not justified. 2. Otherwise also, section 44AD applies where the turnover of assessee does not exceed Rs.2 crore. In the present case, turnover exceeds Rs.2 crores. Hence the n.p. rate of 8% applied by the lower authorities is not justified more particularly when they have not found

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, [ for short “AO”] by Faceless Assessment Unit. 2 Raghav Commodities vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the reopening the assessment

PHOOL CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. RJN-W-(106)(2), JAIPUR

271B of the Act for an amount of Rs. 40,000/-.\nAggrieved from that levy of penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.\nCIT(A) who is also not favour to the assessee and confirmed the levy of penalty by\nholding as under:-\n\" I have carefully considered the ground of appeal, statement of facts of the case

PHOOL CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. RJN-W-(106)(2), JAIPUR

271B of the Act for an amount of Rs. 40,000/-.\nAggrieved from that levy of penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.\nCIT(A) who is also not favour to the assessee and confirmed the levy of penalty by\nholding as under:-\n\" I have carefully considered the ground of appeal, statement of facts of the case

BALVEER SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(3) JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "148", "142(1)", "145(3)", "271(1)(c)", "271(1)(b)", "271B", "274", "234B", "234D", "244A" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

reassessment proceedings were being undertaken in arbitrary manner, impugned reopening notice was justified [2023] 152 taxmann.com 573 (SC)/[2023] 454 ITR 794 (SC) [04-0... INCOME TAX: Notice issued in SLP filed against impugned High Court order that where Assessing Officer made additions under section 68 solely on basis of information received from Investigation Wing that lenders from whom assessee

SMT. UMA MANDAL, 754, LADHON KA MOHALLA, BEHIND MINERVA CINEMA, M.D. ROAD, JAIPUR-302004,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2), JAIPUR, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 466/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Uma Mandal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 754, Lodhon Ka Mohalla, Ward 5(4), Behind Minerva Cinema, M.D. Jaipur. Road, Jaipur-302004. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Apspm 2419 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vishal Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 22/02/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Action Of Ld. A.O. In Assessing The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 2037281.00 Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Earned Only Commission Income At The Rate Of 0.25 Percent & Treating Percent Of The Deposits In Her Bank Account As Her Income. The Additions Of Pursuance Of Same, Are Prayed To Be Deleted 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Action Of Ld. A.O. Of Initiating Penalty Under Section 271A & 271B Ignoring The Fact

271B ignoring the fact 2 ITA 466/JP/2019_ Uma Mandal Vs ITO that the commission should be treated as turnover of the assessee and not the deposits in the account. The Ld. Appellate authority is hereby prayed to hold such action as illegal. 3. On the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action

SHRI KANA RAM KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(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. 1377/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kana Ram Kumawat, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. “Wisdom”, 23 Purohit Ji Baas, Ward- 2(1), Hawa Sarak, Laxmi Dharm Kanta Jaipur. Gali End, 22 Godam, Jaipur- 302006. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahcpk 0149 H Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Anil Kaushik (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jaipur Dated 11/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed U/S 148/144 By Ld. Ao Is Illegal & Bad In Law & Is Invalid Abinitio. 2. The Assessee Has Filed His Income Tax Return On Time, Obtained The Tax Audit Report On Time & The Return So Filed Was Processed & Refund Was Granted By The Department Which Is Duly Posted In 26As By The Department, Despite That Reassessment Proceedings Were Initiated For The Reason That The Assessee Did Not File His Itr, Thus The Very Basis Of Selection Of The Case For Reassessment U/S 147/148 Of The Act Is Ill Founded, Grossly Incorrect & False & In Contradiction With The Facts Available With The Department, Hence, The Reassessment Proceedings

reassessment proceedings U/s 147 of the Act. In this regard, the ld. AR has relied on the written submissions filed before the Bench and the same is reproduced below: “1. It is apparent that the assessee had complied with all the provisions of the Income tax as applicable to him for assessment year 2008-09 as below: i. Obtained

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

271B : Failed to get the accounts audited or obtain audit report as required under section 44AB or furnish such report alongwith return under section 139(1) or in response to notice under section 142(1)(i). 271C : Failed to deduct tax at source, wholly or partly, under section 192 to 195 of Chapter XVII-2. 271D : Taken or accepted certain