RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

reassessment proceedings were initiated by jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer and not by Faceless Assessing Officer as required under section 151A,\nsuch proceedings were to be quashed.\nParas Mahendra Shah v. Union of India [2024] 165 taxmann.com 546

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

reassessment proceedings were initiated by jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer and not by Faceless Assessing Officer as required under section 151A,\nsuch proceedings were to be quashed.\nParas Mahendra Shah v. Union of India [2024] 165 taxmann.com 546

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

reassessment proceedings were initiated by jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer and not by Faceless Assessing Officer as required under section 151A,\nsuch proceedings were to be quashed.\nParas Mahendra Shah v. Union of India [2024] 165 taxmann.com 546

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

reassessment proceedings were initiated by jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer and not by Faceless Assessing Officer as required under section 151A,\nsuch proceedings were to be quashed.\nParas Mahendra Shah v. Union of India [2024] 165 taxmann.com 546

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

reassessment proceedings were initiated by jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer and not by Faceless Assessing Officer as required under section 151A,\nsuch proceedings were to be quashed.\nParas Mahendra Shah v. Union of India [2024] 165 taxmann.com 546

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

section 263(2),\nthe notice issued on 30-4-2009 was barred by limitation.”\n3.4 Chhabra Syncotex (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income\nTax ITA No. 239/Jp/2018 (DC)\n“If the exercise of revision jurisdiction under s.263 in respect of issues\nwhich formed subject-matter of reassessment after the original\nassessment was reopened, the commencement of the limitation would

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

546, 54GA, therefore, the other issues containing in the incriminating material/seized material are not open for the AO for assessment due to the limited scrutiny. Para 3: Regarding satisfaction note, since the satisfaction note was based on the finding as declared by the assessee on its own in the ITR filed for AY 2012-13. Further, AO only compare

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, justified, arbitrary and against the fact of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the reassessment proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction.” 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee appellant is a charitable trust running a veterinary

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SUMS EXIM PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result , ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

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

546/- and of Rs.11,75,84,639/- /- made by AO on account of undisclosed sales and undisclosed investment/ expenditure.’’ M/S. S.M. DEVELOPERS ITA NO. 864/JP/2016 - A.Y. 2009-10 ‘’1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs.5,61,44,663/- made

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

NARESH KUMAR ARORA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment for the verification and particularly when the issue has already been examined in the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Hence, it appears that impugned reopening proceedings were on the borrowed satisfaction and assumption of the jurisdiction 16 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR to reopen the assessment

SMT. MALTI KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

reassessment order was quashed. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the assessee for the first time applied for the copy of the reasons on 14.11.2019 i.e. after passing of appellate order by ld. CIT(A), Jaipur and the same was provided by the AO to her on 18.12.2019 and therefore, it is crystal clear on facts

LAXMI NARAYAN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 263 cannot be invoked.’ Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Moil Ltd. Vs. CIT [81 Taxmann.com 420] observed that if a query is raised during the assessment proceedings which was responded to by the assessee, the mere fact that the query was not dealt with in the assessment order then it would not lead to a conclusion that

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMUCH vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decision is held to be erroneous. Cases may be visualized where the Income-tax Officer while making an assessment examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances

GA INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decision is held to be erroneous. Cases may be visualized where the Income-tax Officer while making an assessment examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 263 cannot be invoked.'\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in Moil Ltd. Vs. CIT [81 Taxmann.com\n420] observed that if a query is raised during the assessment proceedings\nwhich was responded to by the assessee, the mere fact that the query was\nnot dealt with in the assessment order then it would not lead to a\nconclusion that

DHARMENDRA MEHTA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decision is held to be erroneous. Cases may be visualized where the Income-tax Officer while making an assessment examines the accounts, makes enquiries, applies his mind to the facts and circumstances