RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings were initiated but nothing was provided except the screen shot. The ld. AO (Faceless Assessment Unit) considered such alleged accommodation entry for Rs. 1.37 Crore as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and taxed the same in terms of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 1ST Appeal The assessment order so passed by assessment unit was appealed

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 292B of the Act. The Court observed that this provision condones the invalidity which arises merely by mistake, defect or omission in a notice, if in substance and effect it is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. Since, no valid notice was served on the assessee to reassess

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

sections": [ "144", "147", "148", "151", "234A", "234B", "234C", "50C", "54", "80C", "292B" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated under section

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

Section 292B of the IT Act. 1.8.2 Also refer Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v/s ACIT 346 ITR 443(Bom.) and 1.8.3 In the case of CIT V/s SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd 345 ITR 223(Del). Reassessment

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

Section 292B of the IT Act. 1.8.2 Also refer Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v/s ACIT 346 ITR 443(Bom.) and 1.8.3 In the case of CIT V/s SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd 345 ITR 223(Del). Reassessment

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

section even though said issue did not find mention in the reasons\r\nrecorded and the notice issued under s.148. Since there was confusion\r\nprevailing with regard to the powers of the AO to assess or reassess on the\r\nissues for which no reasons were recorded, Expln. 3 came to be inserted as\r\nclarificatory. Now, after

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

reassessment.\n5.\nThe said section is not applicable in the present as the contentions raised are\nrelating to illegality of the Impugned Order as well as exercising power without authority\nof law and without jurisdiction.\n6.\nIn view of the above, the Ld. CIT(E) has wrongly contended that Appellant has\nparticipated in the proceedings therefore, it is precluded from

SUSHILA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

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

Section 292B and 292BB is\nproduced hereunder for reference:\n\"...292B No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other\nproceeding. furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have\nbeen furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the\nprovisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid

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 proceedings initiated by notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were not legally transferred by the Chief Commissioner/Director General, Kolkata after recording and communicating the reasons and providing opportunity to the appellant as prescribed u/s 127(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Our submissions:- Without prejudice to the above ground, it would be seen that

JAI DEEP SINGH,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment. Thus, the appellant’s arguments being devoid of merits are rejected and keeping in view the provisions of section 292B

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section even though said issue did not find mention in the reasons\nrecorded and the notice issued under s.148. Since there was confusion prevailing with\nregard to the powers of the AO to assess or reassess on the issues for which no reasons\nwere recorded, Expln. 3 came to be inserted as clarificatory. Now, after the insertion\nofExpln

AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, ALWAR

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

Reassessment\ncannot be struck down on account of Change of Opinion if the Assessment Order is non-\nspeaking, cryptic or perfunctory in nature The relevant extract of the judicial\npronouncement is reproduced as under\n14\nITA No. 170/JPR/2024\nAksh Optifibre Limited\n\"12) Before interfering with the proposed re-opening of the assessment on the ground that\nthe same

LATE SH. SHEKHAR DHARIWAL THROUGH L/H SMT. NIKITA DHARIWAL,DHARIWAL BHAWAN, SHASTRI MARKET, KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Section 292B—Writ petition was filed by assessee’s son—Held, in case of Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. Income-tax Officer [(2019) 101 taxmann.com 362 (Gujarat)], it was observed that notice u/s 148 is jurisdictional notice, and existence of valid notice u/s 148 is condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction by AO to assess or reassess

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional CIT resulting in vitiating

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search\noperation is a mandatory requirement of section 153D of the Act and that such approval\nis not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding of the\nITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without\napplication of mind by the Additional CIT resulting in vitiating

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional CIT resulting in vitiating

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassessment is passed pursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of section 153D of the Act and that such approval is not meant to be given mechanically. The Court also concurs with the finding of the ITAT that in the present cases such approval was granted mechanically without application of mind by the Additional CIT resulting in vitiating

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)

Section 148 was not authorized and competent—When proceedings were sought to be adopted by ITO at Suratgarh, jurisdiction for assessment in relation to Assessee was being exercised at Chennai—High Court was unable to find any cogent reason to entertain appeal so as to interfere with concurrent Orders passed by CIT (A) and ITAT—Revenue’s appeal dismissed. Also