SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

reassess the income of the respondent pursuant to such return'. On the facts of that case it was held that the Revenue had sufficiently discharged the onus by producing the affidavit of the process server. Under section 282

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassess the income\nof the respondent pursuant to such return'. On the facts of that case it was held\nthat the Revenue had sufficiently discharged the onus by producing the affidavit\nof the process server.\nUnder section 282

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

reassess the income in respect of any issue which has escaped assessment and which come to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under the section o) Oriental Bank of Commerce v Ad.CIT [2014] 90 CCH 27 Del HC p) Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memom v ITO Special Civil Application No.21030 of 2017 – Guj HC The Assessing Officer

KAILASH CHAND YADAV,100, KALU BABA KI DHANI, SHEOSHINGHPUR, AKODA, PHULERA-303338 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - 1(2), JAIPUR

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

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

reassessment or re-computation under section 147. Unless, the notice was served on the proper person in the manner prescribed under section 282

RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BEAWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 150 lays down the exception that no appellate or revisional authority can give a direction to make assessment or reassessment which would have been time barred as on the date of direction by the reason of any other provisions limit the time within which any action for assessment or reassessment may be taken. The Assessing Officer has acted upon

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

282, Nemi Sagar Colony, Jaipur 376.38 Sq. Yards Total area 3410.54 Sq. Yards The AO doubted the genuineness of the transactions of sale of the properties in the agreement as well as receipt of advance of Rs. 8.00 crores which was claimed to have been forfeited by the assessee as the balance amount was not paid by the purchaser

RAM NIWAS YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BEHROR, BEHROR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

282 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, we note that the prayer by the assessee for condonation of delay of 636 days has merit and we concur with the submission of the assessee. Thus the delay of 636 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

RAM NARAYAN,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 282 of the IT Act read with Order 5 of CPC. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Y. Narayana Chetty and Another vs. ITO, 35 ITR 388 (SC) and submitted that the notice for initiating the reassessment

SHRI CHARAN SINGH ,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, BHIWADI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment without service of the notice so issued upon the Assessee in accordance with Section 282 (1) of the Act read

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

reassess the earlier\nassessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can't\nusurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision.\nNo overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the\nrevision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

reassessment of escaped income but to tap undisclosed income in a search related case, S. 148 has no jurisdiction. The Appellant is a person related to search. The issue of Notice u/s. 148 is not tenable as it is a search related case (as per AO’s himself 36 Lovely promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT allegation which was confirmed

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment or re-computation under section 147” in\nthe section itself- meaning thereby that if no notice under section 148 is issued or if the\nnotice so issued is shown to be invalid, or the service of notice so issued, is shown to be\ninvalid, AO could not proceed with the subsequent proceedings for making assessment,\nreassessment or re-computation

MAYA KUMARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment or re-computation under section\n147. Unless, the notice was served on the proper person in the manner prescribed under\nsection 282

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment or re-computation under section 147. Unless, the notice was served on the proper person in the manner prescribed under section 282

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment or re-computation under section 147. Unless, the notice was served on the proper person in the manner prescribed under section 282

VIMLA DEVI MEENA,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD- DAUSA, DAUSA

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

reassessment or re-computation under section 147. Unless, the notice was served on the proper person in the manner prescribed under section 282

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

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

reassessment was completed after making additions of Rs.\n6,93,32,499/- making additions u/s 68 of the Act on account of\nunexplained credits in the grab of bogus sales and thus, the total income\nwas finally assessed at Rs.16,49,44,849/- (PB 62-69) vide the order u/s\n143/147 at 15.04.21.\nLater on, the Id. CIT acting

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

282, 306, 318,\n374, 435), Starwise Computers P Ltd (CIT(A) PBP 287, 307, 319, 386, 437),\nLinkview Tradelink P Ltd (CIT(A) PBP 294, 309, 320, 399, 440), Yashodev\nCommotrade P Ltd (CIT(A) PBP 299, 311, 411, ), Satrangi Vinimay P Ltd (CIT(A)\nPBP 321, 422, 441, 442):\n\n(i) A common inquiry report dated

SYLVAN GREENS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment void in the pre finance act 2021. it would be considered time-barred under the pre-2021 regime. Further the assessee would like to submit that according to section 149: 149. [(1) No notice under section 148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year,- [(a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year