SHRI SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTPUTLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEHROR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment. A notice issued under section 148 of the Act against a dead person is invalid, unless the legal representative submits to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without raising any objection. Therefore, where the legal representative does not waive his right to a notice under section 148 of the Act, it cannot be said that the notice issued against

SMT. LALITA RAWAT, 40, RAWAT PALACE, NEAR MURLI MANOHAR MANDIE, BAS PADANPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-5(5), JAIPUR, WARD-5(5), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Issuing The Notice. 2. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate The Fact Of Re-Assessment Notice & Consequential Re-Assessment

reassessment. A notice issued under section 148 of the Act against a dead person is invalid, unless the legal representative submits to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without raising any objection. Therefore, where the legal representative does not waive his right to a notice under section 148 of the Act, it cannot be said that the notice issued against

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

LATE SH. BHEEM SEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

section 148 and, therefore, the facts and circumstances under which the assessment was reopened by the AO are identical to the facts and circumstances for the assessment year 2009-10. Since the AO has reopened the assessment to assess the income of Rs. 2,50,080/- which was in fact already offered to tax by the assessee in the revised

LATE SH. BHIM SEN BATRA L/H SH. HIMANSHU BATRA,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

section 148 and, therefore, the facts and circumstances under which the assessment was reopened by the AO are identical to the facts and circumstances for the assessment year 2009-10. Since the AO has reopened the assessment to assess the income of Rs. 2,50,080/- which was in fact already offered to tax by the assessee in the revised

LATE SH. BHEEM SEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

section 148 and, therefore, the facts and circumstances under which the assessment was reopened by the AO are identical to the facts and circumstances for the assessment year 2009-10. Since the AO has reopened the assessment to assess the income of Rs. 2,50,080/- which was in fact already offered to tax by the assessee in the revised

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the persons/ members of the Maverick group, Jaipur on 22nd July 2015. In this group, in some cases department as well is assessee’s are in appeal against the order of CIT (A). The main grounds of appeals have been briefly mentioned

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the persons/ members of the Maverick group, Jaipur on 22nd July 2015. In this group, in some cases department as well is assessee’s are in appeal against the order of CIT (A). The main grounds of appeals have been briefly mentioned

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the persons/ members of the Maverick group, Jaipur on 22nd July 2015. In this group, in some cases department as well is assessee’s are in appeal against the order of CIT (A). The main grounds of appeals have been briefly mentioned

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the persons/ members of the Maverick group, Jaipur on 22nd July 2015. In this group, in some cases department as well is assessee’s are in appeal against the order of CIT (A). The main grounds of appeals have been briefly mentioned

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the persons/ members of the Maverick group, Jaipur on 22nd July 2015. In this group, in some cases department as well is assessee’s are in appeal against the order of CIT (A). The main grounds of appeals have been briefly mentioned

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the persons/ members of the Maverick group, Jaipur on 22nd July 2015. In this group, in some cases department as well is assessee’s are in appeal against the order of CIT (A). The main grounds of appeals have been briefly mentioned

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the persons/ members of the Maverick group, Jaipur on 22nd July 2015. In this group, in some cases department as well is assessee’s are in appeal against the order of CIT (A). The main grounds of appeals have been briefly mentioned

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the persons/ members of the Maverick group, Jaipur on 22nd July 2015. In this group, in some cases department as well is assessee’s are in appeal against the order of CIT (A). The main grounds of appeals have been briefly mentioned

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

section 132 (1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out by the Income Tax Department on the persons/ members of the Maverick group, Jaipur on 22nd July 2015. In this group, in some cases department as well is assessee’s are in appeal against the order of CIT (A). The main grounds of appeals have been briefly mentioned

THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEE'S CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

482/- on which the AO has also computed the interest under section 201(1A) amounting to Rs. 33,103/- and hence the AO has raised total demand of Rs. 67,585/-. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before ld. CIT (A) and submitted that when the assessee has taken Form No. 15G/H from the 3 The Railway Employees

BARODA RAJASTHAN KHESTRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

482/-. Revenue holds that as per information available on record, the assessee has wrongly claimed expenses of Rs. 1,37,05,000/- for the Advance written off and also claimed expenses of Rs. 3,39,25,000/- on account of provision for standard assets during the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to AY 2017-18. Based on that contention a notice

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings.” In the light of the above judgment we are unable to affirm the action of the authorities below. As the initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) vide notice 274 of the Act is not inconformity with the requirement of the law. Thus, the Penalty order