DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 147/148 of the Act, relying on the same judgment of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), CBDT Instruction No. 1/2023 (CLC 35-40), and the provisions of Section 150 of the Act. The assessee, while supporting the ultimate relief granted, is aggrieved by the directions given by the ld. CIT(A) in his order suggesting the AO initiate proceedings under Section 147/148

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 147/148 of the Act, relying on the same judgment of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), CBDT Instruction No. 1/2023 (CLC 35-40), and the provisions of Section 150 of the Act. The assessee, while supporting the ultimate relief granted, is aggrieved by the directions given by the ld. CIT(A) in his order suggesting the AO initiate proceedings under Section 147/148

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

reassess total income for entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment. In respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments no addition can be made by Assessing Officer in absence of any incriminating material found during course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A. Completed/unabated assessments can be reopened by Assessing Officer in exercise

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)

reassessments contemplated under section 153A. There is also no requirement under section 153A and other provisions requiring the Department to collect information and evidence for each and every year for six previous years under section 153A. Therefore, the argument of assessee that the information gathered either during pre-search enquiry or during the course of search cannot be made

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)

reassessments contemplated under section 153A. There is also no requirement under section 153A and other provisions requiring the Department to collect information and evidence for each and every year for six previous years under section 153A. Therefore, the argument of assessee that the information gathered either during pre-search enquiry or during the course of search cannot be made

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)

reassessments contemplated under section 153A. There is also no requirement under section 153A and other provisions requiring the Department to collect information and evidence for each and every year for six previous years under section 153A. Therefore, the argument of assessee that the information gathered either during pre-search enquiry or during the course of search cannot be made

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

57 of Rs.34,647/- in\nthe head income from other sources, the assessee was involved in a transaction\nof sale of immovable property during the year and the same resulted in short\nterm loss of Rs.1,46,543/- the difference of the cost of purchase and the sale\nconsideration was Rs.63,000/- so the short term loss was restricted

LATE SHRI JITENDRA NAGAR THROUGH HIS L/R SMT. DEEPIKA NAGAR,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BARAN, BARAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

reassessment notice issued beyond the surviving time limit is invalid. For AY 2015-16, the surviving time limit was exceeded, and the notice issued on 30/06/2022 is therefore barred by limitation. The Ld. DR could not present any contrary facts or rulings to refute the submissions of the Ld. AR. Respectfully following the decisions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) and Rajeev

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)

Reassessment proceedings as also subsequent recovery of tax are quashed and set aside. Mrs. ShubhashriPanickerVs. CIT (2018) 166 DTR 1 (Raj.) (HC) Notice under sec. 148 having been sent to an address where the assessee was not residing, presumption of service cannot be drawn. CIT Vs. ITC Hotels (2015) 231 Taxman 57 (Kar.) (HC) When notice

BHASKAR CHOUHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIKAR

reassess\ntotal income for entire six years block assessment period even in case\nof completed/unabated assessment. In respect of completed\nassessments/unabated assessments no addition can be made by\nAssessing Officer in absence of any incriminating material found during\ncourse of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A.\nCompleted/unabated assessments can be reopened by Assessing\nOfficer in exercise

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act was not valid and the same is quashed. The appeal on Ground No 1 to 1.3 are thus allowed. 1. In view of the above decision on Ground No 1 to 1.3, appeal on Ground No 2 to 2.4, 3, 4 and 5 have become infructuous and no further adjudication is required on merits

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

reassessing the income which was the basis for issuing the notice under section 148 not other income could be assess. b) Ranbaxy lab Ltd Vs. CIT (2011), 57

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

reassessment proceedings.\nReassessment proceedings as also subsequent recovery of tax are quashed and\nset aside.\nMrs. ShubhashriPanickerVs. CIT (2018) 166 DTR 1 (Raj.) (HC)\nNotice under sec. 148 having been sent to an address where the assessee was\nnot residing, presumption of service cannot be drawn.\nCIT Vs. ITC Hotels (2015) 231 Taxman 57 (Kar.) (HC)\nWhen notice

RAM KHILARI MEENA,DAUSA vs. ITO, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

57,500 u/s 44AE, an amount of Rs. 14,341 being income from "other sources" and an amount of Rs.72,114 being long term capital gains. However, the AO had information that there are cash deposits in Bank of Baroda A/c No. 225901000006538 at Rs. 11,10,000 and also withdrawals of Rs.26,78,500. The AO observed that

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ASHOK PARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 53/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Circle-04, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Ashok Parwal M-57, Mahesh Colony, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ACJPO7256L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Vedant Agarwal, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Ajey Malik, CIT (th. V.C.) सुनवाई क

reassesses the total income. It is not obligatory on the AO to make assessment for all the years, the earlier orders passed may be accepted. But once there is incriminating material seized or requisitioned belonging or relatable to the person other than on whom search was conducted, Section 153C is to be resorted to ………………. 40. In view of above discussion

SH. KESAR LAL BAIRWA,A-24, VARUN COLONY, MANDARA STAND, NEW SANGANER ROAD, MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

57,909/- (Rs. 7,50,709 + 23,07,200) as exempt. Thereafter, notices under section 142(1) and 143(2) dated 07.08.2018 and 29.09.2018 respectively were issued. In response, the assessee explained that interest is paid under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act which is a part of the compensation itself. The compensation itself being exempt under section

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order passed\nu/s 147 r.w.s.143(3) is also illegal and void abinitio and is liable to be quashed.”\n\nFurther reliance is placed on the following case laws:\n\nAshok Kumar BatwaniTalwandi ITA No. 204/2004 dated 10.01.2017 (Raj.)\n\n140 TTJ 249 ITO vs. Arum Kumar Kapoor (ITAT, Amritsar Bench)\n\n64 taxmann.com 159 G. Koteswara Rao v/s DCIT

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court