DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

56. Section 153A of the Act is titled "Assessment in case of search or requisition". It is connected to Section 132 which deals with 'search and seizure'. Both these provisions, therefore, have to be read together. Section 153A is indeed an extremely potent power which enables the Revenue to re open at least six years of assessments earlier

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

1) is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been service'. However, the said decision does state that jurisdiction becomes vested in the Assessing Officer to proceed with the assessment once notice is issued within a period of limita-tion. It also emphasized that no reassessment shall be made 'until there has been service'. The legal position therefore

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

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

1) is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been\nservice'. However, the said decision does state that jurisdiction becomes vested\nin the Assessing Officer to proceed with the assessment once notice is issued\nwithin a period of limita-tion. It also emphasized that no reassessment shall be\nmade 'until there has been service'. The legal position therefore

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

56,31,38,249 \n\nBased on this calculation again the assessee was asked to show cause as \nto why the aforementioned addition should not be made in his hand. The \nassessee submitted his reply which was considered by the ld. AO but was \nnot found tenable. Ld. AO also went on to observe that the entries made by \nthe

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

1 (SC)\nvi. Charanjiv Agarwal vs. Income Tax Officer. I. T. A. No. 598/Asr/2015\nvii. ACIT Vs Dinesh kumar (ITAT Delhi) dated 31.10.2014\nviii. Unique Metal Industries Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) dated 28.10.2015\nSection 147 & 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Reassessment\nReassessment proceedings were invalid and bad in law as the reasons\nrecorded were undated which itself proved

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

56,000. The capital gain came to Rs. 1,40,000. In the 14 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR original return, the assessee claimed that as he has purchased the immovable property against the consideration received on the sale of house property on April 26, 1991, therefore, no capital gain tax is attracted. Thereafter, he filed

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

56, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Income from other\nsources - Chargeable as (Reassessment) - Assessing Officer worked out profit on basis of\ncontract and sub-contract income On account of oversight/mistake, he failed to add\ninterest income shown in books as other income - Subsequently, audit objections were\nraised by audit party Invoking section 147/148, Assessing Officer

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

Reassessment pursuant to material found in search can be done through recourse to section 153C only and not by invoking the provisions of section 147/148. 1.12. The provisions of section 153C are over-riding in nature and contain non obstante clause for sections 139,147,148,149,151 and 153. 1.13. Section 147 and 153C are not interchangeable

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

reassessment is to be done in two different stages challenging the reasons of reopening and (i) challenging the assessment order. Assessee's challenge to the order of the assessing officer rejecting the objection against the reasons of reopening and assessce's challenge to the assessment order are two separate proceedings. Assessee cannot challenge order of the assessing officer disposing objections

NITU KHADARIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), NCRB BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

56,191/-. Addition of Rs. 20,00,056/- was made as unexplained money u/s 68A. Penalty was also initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention that the assessee had filed complete details, along with supporting evidence, which was being duly reflected on the ITBA portal, but the Ld.AO

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

56,15,915/- @ 60% on total undisclosed income of Rs. 93,59,859/- under section 271AAB(1A) of the Act. The assessee raised objection against the levy of penalty by filing the reply and written submissions and mainly contended that the additional income was disclosed and offered to tax to buy peace and avoid litigation and, therefore, the penalty cannot

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

56,24,542/-\n3\nTotal\nRs. 5,27,90,838/-\nThe assessee trust was asked to submit details with regard to these expenses.\nOn going through assessee's submission it was noticed that most of these Pocket\nallowance expenses were incurred in cash. In support, the assessee trust submitted copies\nof signed payment sheet (salary slip). Copy of sample sheet

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

56,00,362/- was considered\nas escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act,\n1961. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 30.03.2021\ncalling for filing of return of income for A.Y.2017-18.\nLd. AO noted that there was no response to the notice issued u/s\n148, a notice u/s 142(1

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

56,00,362/- was considered\nas escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act,\n1961. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 30.03.2021\ncalling for filing of return of income for A.Y.2017-18.\nLd. AO noted that there was no response to the notice issued u/s\n148, a notice u/s 142(1

DIPTI GARG,TONK vs. ITO WD, TONK

reassessment proceedings. Thus, the legal issue raised in\nground nos. 1 and 2 are hereby dismissed.\n7. Now coming to the merits of the case raised in the ground nos. 3\nand 4, the grievance of the assessee is against the finding of the Ld.\nCIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO u/s. 56(2)(viib

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

1 SCR 909 : 56 ITR 198] : „ 31 Lovely promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT It is clear that a circular of the kind which was issued by the Board would be binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Act under Section 5(8) of the Act. This circular pointed out to all the officers that

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassessment - Assessee filed a fresh\nreturn and paid differential tax and interest - Assessment was completed with no\naddition to disclosed income - However, Revenue imposed a penalty under\nSection 271(1)(c), alleging concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income - First Appellate Authority cancelled penalty due to lack of\nestablished concealment of income - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal