RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BEAWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2) of 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

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

The appeal stands allowed

282(1) and section 153(2) of the Act is a jurisdictional precondition to finalising the reassessment. (iv) The onus

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)

282(1) and section 153(2) of the Act is a jurisdictional precondition to finalising the reassessment. (iv) The onus

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

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 28. The correctness of the claim of the Assessee for the purpose of Section 14A read with Rule

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

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

2, Madhab\nKisto Sett Lane, Kolkata, 700007. In this regard certificate issued by land lord\nShri Santosh Kumar Soni (CIT(A) PBP-101-102) and bill of Rent (CIT(A)\nPBP-99-100) issued to lender company by land lord is enclosed.\n\n(iv) The existence of said place is further evident from copy of bill issued for\nelectricity

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment into two stages and when viewed in that light allocation. The distribution of functions between the JAO and NFAC is complimentary and concurrent as contemplated under the various schemes and the statutory provisions. This balanced distribution underscores the legislative intent to create a seamless integration of traditional and faceless assessment mechanisms within a unified statutory framework This

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment into two stages and when viewed in that light allocation. The distribution of functions between the JAO and NFAC is complimentary and concurrent as contemplated under the various schemes and the statutory provisions. This balanced distribution underscores the legislative intent to create a seamless integration of traditional and faceless assessment mechanisms within a unified statutory framework This

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

2 of appeal filed before him. However, the CIT(A) without commenting on the same dismissed the ground of appeal. Section 250 of the Act, itself states that CIT(A) order should be a speaking order. Moreover, it is the consistent opinion of the various courts that first appellate authority always pass order considering each and every please / grounds

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)

282 (1) and Section 153 (2) of the Act is a jurisdictional pre-condition to finalizing the reassessment. (iv) The onus

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

282 (SC). 28. Further it is settled law that initiation of 263 proceedings at the instance of Revenue Audit is impermissible. Reliance is placed upon: 20 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT • Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Sohana Woolen Mills (2006) 9 TMI 157 [Compilation 1-3] has held: A reference to the provisions of section

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

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

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

2) of section 263 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961.\n9. In the light of above discussion, assessment order passed by the AO\nin the case of the assessee is Set-aside (Partly) for fresh assessment by\nthe AO on the issues of-\n(A) Disallowance on account of late payment of ESI/PF (Rs.24,14,531/-).\n(B) Disallowance

SARITA GUPTA,ALWAR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

282/- and thus worked out the excess stock at Rs.1,83,259/- but considering that on the short stock of Rs.76,023/- the assessee has declared profit of Rs.12,924/-, made addition of Rs.1,70,335/-. 4. In the assessment order with reference to the cash of Rs.3,31,735/-, AO invoked provision of section 115BBE but in the computation

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

282/-deserves to be deleted.\n1.1 That the Ld. AO has further erred in ignoring the fact that the\ndeduction was claimed on the basis of ruling of jurisdictional High\nCourt prevailing at the time of filing Return of Income. Appellant prays\nthat no liability can be fastened upon the assessee on the basis of\nsubsequent amendment made in statue

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

282/-deserves to be deleted.\n1.1\nThat the Ld. AO has further erred in ignoring the fact that the\ndeduction was claimed on the basis of ruling of jurisdictional High\nCourt prevailing at the time of filing Return of Income. Appellant prays\nthat no liability can be fastened upon the assessee on the basis of\nsubsequent amendment made in statue

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

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess taking into consideration the other\nmaterial in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments.\nMeaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no\naddition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating\nmaterial found during the course of search under Section 132 or\nrequisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the\ncompleted/unabated assessments can be re-opened