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..”\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

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

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

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,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\nOfficer 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 KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Without referring the matter to\nValuation and without bringing any material on record to establish that the\nassessee had received amount other than the sale consideration as per the\nsale deed, the Learned Assessing Officer proceeded to make the impugned\naddition of Rs. 1,26,87,868/-. The aforesaid decisions rendered

RAM SHRAN KATTA, 257, KATTA STREET, JAIN MANDIR WALI GALI, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the\nprovisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account\nor documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the\ntotal income of such other person.”\n2.3.\nSection 153C of the Act makes it mandatory for AO of searched

RAM SHARAN KATTA, 257, KATTA STREET, JAIN MANDIR WALI GALI, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the\nprovisions of section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account\nor documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the\ntotal income of such other person.”\n2.3.\nSection 153C of the Act makes it mandatory for AO of searched

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

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

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

50C(1) of the LT. Act. 1961, arbitrarily, thus the value so adopted deserves to be hold bad in law. Ground No. 4: On facts and in circumstances of the matter, the Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs. 3,68,874/- u/s 69 on account of alleged investment in property, arbitrarily. Thus the addition so made deserve

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere\nmentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale\nconsideration as per the sale deed was Rs.50 lakhs and that the assessee had by\nfiling the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain.\"\n1.2.2 In the case of Vijay Harish Chandra Patel

RAM JI LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, HOLDING ADDITIONAL CHARGE OF ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction 2. Without prejudice to Ground of Appeal No. 1. the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) has grossly erred in completing the assessment without complying with the explicit directions of the Hon'ble ITAT to obtain a valuation report from the District Valuation Officer (DVO) under Section 50C

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

50C(1) of the LT. Act. 1961, arbitrarily, thus the value so adopted deserves to be hold bad in law. Ground No. 4: On facts and in circumstances of the matter, the Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- u/s 68 by treating the loan taken from M/s. Gemini Commerce Pvt. Ltd. as accommodation entry arbitrarily

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR , LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

50C(1) of the LT. Act. 1961, arbitrarily, thus the value so adopted deserves to be hold bad in law. Ground No. 4: On facts and in circumstances of the matter, the Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- u/s 68 by treating the loan taken from M/s. Gemini Commerce Pvt. Ltd. as accommodation entry arbitrarily

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC-2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

50C(1) of the LT. Act. 1961, arbitrarily, thus the value so adopted deserves to be hold bad in law. Ground No. 4: On facts and in circumstances of the matter, the Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- u/s 68 by treating the loan taken from M/s. Gemini Commerce Pvt. Ltd. as accommodation entry arbitrarily

RAM SWAROOP BALAI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

50C of the act on the basis of mere conjuncture and surmises are liable to be deleted. (b) Ld. AO ignored the affidavit of the assessee In this case the Ld. AO while disallowing the cost of transfer expenses observed as follows “The assessee claimed cost of transfer expenses of Rs. 42,99,000/- The assessee was asked to furnish