RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

69A, section 698, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent, and (b) The amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause(a) (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure

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

69A and higher tax-rate under Section 115BBE; ITAT holds that once the Assessee hos himself admitted and of non- explanation of the source of income and therefore, Revenue is fully justified in regarding the same as unexplained, both as to its nature and source, Relies upon the SC judgment in Prakash Chand Lunia wherein the SC confirmed the application

RAMDAS SINGH TOMAR,RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ramdas Singh Tomar M/s Om Sai Construction, Harikand Ka Pura Faraspura, Dholpur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AMZPT4728R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rahul Pandya, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT सुनवा

69A could not be invoked - Held, yes [Paras 6 and 7] [In favour of assessee]” That the Hon’ble THE ITAT PUNE BENCH 'C' incase of Abrar Fakir mohmmad Shaikh v. Income Tax Officer (IT) [2023] 155 taxmann.com 505 (Pune - Trib.) held that “Section69A, read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys - (Reassessment

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

In the result ground no. 7

69A. Also, provisions of section 115BBE\nwere invoked in respect of additions so made.\nAggrieved of the assessment order passed and the additions so made, assessee\nhas preferred an appeal before Id. CIT(A) wherein Id. CIT(A) dismiss the appeal\nof the assessee without considering the submission made and evidence adduced\nbefore him.\nPresent appeal has been filed

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 69A of the Act.\n\n4.3 It is also relevant to note that various courts had taken a view that the reassessment

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

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)

sections of 153C of the Act and therefore consequential order passed u/s 147 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 1.4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the action of ld. AO in reopening the assessment, beyond the specified time line. Thus, the reassessment proceedings initiated is time barred and entire

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.”

69A of the Act for the year under consideration under section 147 read with section 144B of the IT Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) by sustaining the addition, confirmed the order of the AO. Now, the assessee is in appeal before

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)

69A is not sustainable as the said expenditure has been incurred in the course of the business of the appellant. Accordingly ground no. 04 & 08 raised by the appellant are hereby partly allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. 6. Feeling dissatisfied from the above finding of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee

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

MALI RAM YADAV,SHAHPURA vs. ITO, BEHROR

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

69A, ignoring the vital fact that the case was reopened to bring to tax the cash deposited into his bank account by the assessee as his unexplained income and the AO had made the addition on account of unexplained cash deposited into bank.. • Submission on the grounds of appeal : Re : Gr. No. 1 & 2 The assumption of jurisdiction

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

Section 149 of the Act. Thus, the reassessment proceedings initiated is time barred and entire proceedings are void ab initio. 1.3. Without prejudice to above, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the action of Id. AO in reopening the assessment already completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153A whereas, in the reasons recorded for reopening, there is no allegation

SONU AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings was provided to the assessee vide DIN ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1043252147(1) DATED 30.05.2022 wherein the assessee was given a show-cause as to why the total transaction amount of Rs. 81,84,838/- shall not be treated as income chargeable to tax which has escaped the assessment within the meaning of provision of section

SADHWANI WOOD PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL JAIPUR , JAIPUR

reassessment shall be passed by an Assessing Officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner in respect of each assessment year referred to in clause (b) of [sub-section (1) of] section 153A or the assessment year referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B, except with the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner:]\n18.1

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

RATIKA KUMBHAT,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

69A, read with sections 147, 148 and 148A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Reassessment) - Assessment year 2020-21 - Assessing

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of\nthe Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the\nso-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough\nback own funds, hence, there is no ground/material to form reasonable belief of any\naccommodation entry. (Refer PCIT

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

reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging payment against credit card bills and earned contract receipts without explaining their source. Notice under Section 148 was issued but returned unserved.", "held": "The Tribunal held that service of notice under Section 148 is a jurisdictional requirement and not a procedural one. Since the notice was not properly

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

reassess the earlier\nassessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can't\nusurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision.\nNo overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the\nrevision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal