SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

Section 50C(2). However, this request was not accepted by the AO, nor was it considered by the CIT(A) during the first appellate proceedings. In our considered view, once a specific request is made by the assessee, it is incumbent upon the AO to refer the valuation of the property to the DVO. Accordingly, in the interest of justice

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

reassessment.] 21. It was submitted that section 292BB is an exclusive definition and specifically provides that a notice shall be deemed to be served in a situation that assessee has cooperated/ attended / participated in assessment/ re assessment proceedings and no objection regarding non receipt of notice was filed during assessment stage. In other words, section 292BB cures only procedural infirmities

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

reassessment.] 21. It was submitted that section 292BB is an exclusive definition and specifically provides that a notice shall be deemed to be served in a situation that assessee has cooperated/ attended / participated in assessment/ re assessment proceedings and no objection regarding non receipt of notice was filed during assessment stage. In other words, section 292BB cures only procedural infirmities

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

50C(2) - Held, yes..”\n22. As per explanation (iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to\nthe Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

50C(2) - Whether it was incumbent upon Assessing\nOfficer to refer matter for valuation to a Valuation Officer as provided in section\n50C(2) - Held, yes..\"\n\n22. As per explanation (iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

50C(2) - Whether it was incumbent upon Assessing\nOfficer to refer matter for valuation to a Valuation Officer as provided in section\n50C(2) - Held, yes..”\n22. As per explanation (iia) to section 153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 50C of the Act are applicable. 5. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT. 6. Ground No. 1 of the appeal raised by the assessee relates to confirming the action of the A.O. by the ld. CIT(A) in passing the order U/s 148/143

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

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 35 ITA Nos. 293(7)/JP/2017 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur. 19. On behalf

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 35 ITA Nos. 293(7)/JP/2017 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur. 19. On behalf

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 35 ITA Nos. 293(7)/JP/2017 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur. 19. On behalf

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 35 ITA Nos. 293(7)/JP/2017 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur. 19. On behalf

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 35 ITA Nos. 293(7)/JP/2017 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur. 19. On behalf

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 35 ITA Nos. 293(7)/JP/2017 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur. 19. On behalf

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 35 ITA Nos. 293(7)/JP/2017 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur. 19. On behalf

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

section 50C ignoring the fact that transfer was made vide sale agreement on dated 22.01.2006. 12. On the facts & circumstances of the case and law also ld. Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in modifying the assessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act to the order passed u/s 147/144 of the Act without giving any opportunity for same

KALURAM BUNKAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

reassessment proceedings being illegal and without any basis. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 29,89,159/- as long term capital gain under section 45 read with section 50C

DAMODAR LAL SONI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

reassessment proceedings and did not commit any blunder in not supplying the reasons as they were never asked for from him. Accordingly Ground Nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed. 3 Shri Damodar Lal Soni vs. ITO, Ward- 4 (2), Jaipur . 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the lower authorities have erred