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

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceeding repeatedly sought the clear and legitimate copy of the ledger on the basis of which it is alleged that assessee has undertaken alleged F&O Transaction with Shri Ajay Gangwal and same is not yet been provided till date by the ld. AO. It is also submitted that assessee has categorically denied on entering any F&O transaction

MILESTONE DEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment. Explanation-In this section, "Valuation Officer" has the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). The above Section 142A(2) clearly states that it is not necessary to reject the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the appellant before making reference to the Valuation Officer u/s 142A

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI VIMAL CHAND SURANA(HUF), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

reassessment has assessed the income of Rs. 3,04,38,120/- by making an addition of Rs. 2,64,66,445/- on account of unexplained investment under section 69

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

section u/s. 69 r.w.s. 115BBE], the Id.\nAssessing Officer sent a proposal to the Id. PCIT to initiate proceedings u/s. 263 for\nΑ.Υ. 2018-2019 vide its letter dated 17.11.2023 [PB 703-708] & which was\nforwarded by the Id. JCIT to Id. PCIT vide its letter dated 22.11.2023 [PB 709-710].\n1.19. That furthermore on the basis of letter

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

RAJESH CHOUDHARY,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

69 of the Act is applicable or not? It depends on the basis of following conditions:- (i). Investment is not recorded in Books. (ii). Assessee offers no explanations about the nature & sources of the investment or the explanation by him is not in the opinion of the A.O., satisfactory. Hence the Ld. A.O. examined & verified both the 2 conditions. First

PREM LATA PANDYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1471/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2019-20 Prem Lata Pandya बनाम Deputy Commissioner of 302, Raj Mension, D-299, Vs. Income Tax, Tulsi Marg Bani Park, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./ PAN/GIR No.:ACXPJ9951A निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assessee by : Sh. S.L.Poddar, Adv. राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Sh. Gautam Singh

69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), The income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i)the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent, and (ii) the amount of income

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

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

reassessment was completed vide order dated\n26.03.2015 by making a further disallowance of Rs.1,38,95,995/- u/s\n40(a)(ia) of the Act (and the total reassessed income of Rs.\n5,97,80,77,790/-). However, this was followed by a notice u/s 263 with\nreference to the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. 147 of the\nAct

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

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

TEJENDER PAL SINGH SAHNI,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result ITA No. 1147/JP/2024 (A

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

reassessment under the Income-tax Act. and the time limit for completion of such action under section 153 or section 153B thereof, expires on the 30th day of April, 2021 due to its extension by the said notifications, such time limit shall further stand extended to the 30th day of June, 2021. In view of the Notification

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)

section 147 of the Act and with the approval of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax? Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in quashing the reopening and reassessment u/s147 of the Act without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case ignoring that the assessee was involved in organized tax evasion

VINITA BAJORIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

section 147, and • The reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 be kindly held to be without jurisdiction, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: S. No. Particulars Page Nos. 1. Synopsis of the Case

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

reassessment under Section 147, 148 & 148A of the Act in a faceless manner. Proceedings under Section 147 and Section 148 of the Act would now have to be taken as per the 34 ITA No. 656/JP/2023 & CO No. 06/JP/2023 ITO vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni procedure legislated by the Parliament in respect of reopening/ re-assessment i.e., proceedings under Section 148A

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

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

section\n147 of the Act and with the approval of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax?\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in\nquashing the reopening and reassessment u/s147 of the Act without appreciating\nthe facts and circumstances of the case ignoring that the assessee was involved\nin organized tax evasion

SUNIL KUMAR GATTANI,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 7

reassessment is passed\npursuant to a search operation is a mandatory requirement of section 153D and\nthat such approval is not meant to be given mechanically and while elaborate\nreasons need not be given, but there has to be some indication that approving\nauthority has examined draft orders and finds that it meets requirement of law\nHigh Court further held