DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

42,47,25,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act on account unexplained partner’s Capital receipts from alleged partners namely M/s. Banshidhar Advisory Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Vasundhara Advisory Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Prithvi Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Macro Soft Technology Pvt. Ltd. by observing that the burden casted upon

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

42,47,25,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act on account unexplained partner’s Capital receipts from alleged partners namely M/s. Banshidhar Advisory Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Vasundhara Advisory Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Prithvi Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Macro Soft Technology Pvt. Ltd. by observing that the burden casted upon

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

42,47,25,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act on account unexplained partner’s Capital receipts from alleged partners namely M/s. Banshidhar Advisory Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Vasundhara Advisory Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Prithvi Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Macro Soft Technology Pvt. Ltd. by observing that the burden casted upon

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

42,47,25,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act on account unexplained partner’s Capital receipts from alleged partners namely M/s. Banshidhar Advisory Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Vasundhara Advisory Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Prithvi Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Macro Soft Technology Pvt. Ltd. by observing that the burden casted upon

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessing the unabated assessment on the basis of material received from the other sources and can proceed under section 148. The decision does not 39 Sh. Kapil Taneja vs. DCIT support the contentions raised that section 148 is rendered redundant if section 153C is to be resorted to in the facts of the present case. 36. The Single Bench

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

reassessment is essentially the incriminating material disclosing undisclosed income which was not disclosed by the assessee. In the case in hand, the AO himself has not claimed any incriminating material found during the search and seizure in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

reassessment is essentially the incriminating material disclosing undisclosed income which was not disclosed by the assessee. In the case in hand, the AO himself has not claimed any incriminating material found during the search and seizure in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

reassessment is essentially the incriminating material disclosing undisclosed income which was not disclosed by the assessee. In the case in hand, the AO himself has not claimed any incriminating material found during the search and seizure in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

reassessment is essentially the incriminating material disclosing undisclosed income which was not disclosed by the assessee. In the case in hand, the AO himself has not claimed any incriminating material found during the search and seizure in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

reassessment is essentially the incriminating material disclosing undisclosed income which was not disclosed by the assessee. In the case in hand, the AO himself has not claimed any incriminating material found during the search and seizure in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassessment is essentially the incriminating material disclosing undisclosed income which was not disclosed by the assessee. In the case in hand, the AO himself has not claimed any incriminating material found during the search and seizure in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassessment is essentially the incriminating material disclosing undisclosed income which was not disclosed by the assessee. In the case in hand, the AO himself has not claimed any incriminating material found during the search and seizure in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

reassessment is essentially the incriminating material disclosing undisclosed income which was not disclosed by the assessee. In the case in hand, the AO himself has not claimed any incriminating material found during the search and seizure in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

reassessment is essentially the incriminating material disclosing undisclosed income which was not disclosed by the assessee. In the case in hand, the AO himself has not claimed any incriminating material found during the search and seizure in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act—by invoking Section 150 and relying on CBDT Instruction No. 1/2023— is ex-facie without jurisdiction, contrary to binding judicial precedent, and violative of the appellate framework under Sections 250/251 of the Act. 4. It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal, in exercise of its plenary powers under Section

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Act—by invoking Section 150 and relying on CBDT Instruction No. 1/2023— is ex-facie without jurisdiction, contrary to binding judicial precedent, and violative of the appellate framework under Sections 250/251 of the Act. 4. It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal, in exercise of its plenary powers under Section

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

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

section 147/148 of the Act after expiry of 4 years from the end of the assessment year. Further, reassessment proceedings were initiated by the AO on the premise that the assessee has not disclosed the purchase consider of the alleged land, however, it is pertinent to note that the assessee did not purchase any land as it remained with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

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 would include