DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GURU PRAGYA INFRA (P) LTD., JAIPUR

80-IB(10), the deduction can’t be disallowed in entirety but should be restricted only with reference to those flats where there is a violation of the said conditions. D.C.I.T Vs. M/s Guru Pragya Infra (P) Ltd., Jaipur 12.6 In light of above discussions, where the allotment of flats has been made prior to 1.4.2009, the assessee shall

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

reassess the income of the assessee is based on the seized material and statement of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act for which the specific remedy is provided u/s 153C of the Act. For ready reference we quote section 153C as under:- “ 153C. 79[(1)] 80

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)

reassess the income of the assessee is based on the seized material and statement of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act for which the specific remedy is provided u/s 153C of the Act. For ready reference we quote section 153C as under:- “ 153C. 79[(1)] 80

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

80,570/-. A search and seizure operation was carried out at various premises of Shubham Group, Kota on 3rd March, 2016. Assessee is also covered under the said search and seizure action. In response to notice under section 153A, the assessee filed her return of income on 27th September, 2016 at the same income as declared in the return

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

80,570/-. A search and seizure operation was carried out at various premises of Shubham Group, Kota on 3rd March, 2016. Assessee is also covered under the said search and seizure action. In response to notice under section 153A, the assessee filed her return of income on 27th September, 2016 at the same income as declared in the return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

80,570/-. A search and seizure operation was carried out at various premises of Shubham Group, Kota on 3rd March, 2016. Assessee is also covered under the said search and seizure action. In response to notice under section 153A, the assessee filed her return of income on 27th September, 2016 at the same income as declared in the return

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

80,570/-. A search and seizure operation was carried out at various premises of Shubham Group, Kota on 3rd March, 2016. Assessee is also covered under the said search and seizure action. In response to notice under section 153A, the assessee filed her return of income on 27th September, 2016 at the same income as declared in the return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

80,570/-. A search and seizure operation was carried out at various premises of Shubham Group, Kota on 3rd March, 2016. Assessee is also covered under the said search and seizure action. In response to notice under section 153A, the assessee filed her return of income on 27th September, 2016 at the same income as declared in the return

POOJASHISH INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment is essentially the incriminating material disclosing undisclosed income which was not disclosed by the assessee. In the case in hand, the AO himself has not claimed any incriminating material found during the search and seizure in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this

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

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.”

Section 148 – to issue a reassessment notice. 80. In Ashish Agarwal (supra), this Court directed that Section 148 notices which

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)

80 HHC of the Income-tax Act as well as the loss computed under the assessment dated 29-12-2000 would attain finality. In such a case, the A.O, while passing the independent assessment order under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the IT. Act could not have disturbed the assessment/ reassessment

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)

80 HHC of the Income-tax Act as well as the loss computed under the assessment dated 29-12-2000 would attain finality. In such a case, the A.O, while passing the independent assessment order under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the IT. Act could not have disturbed the assessment/ reassessment

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)

80 HHC of the Income-tax Act as well as the loss computed under the assessment dated 29-12-2000 would attain finality. In such a case, the A.O, while passing the independent assessment order under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) of the IT. Act could not have disturbed the assessment/ reassessment

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

80-IE, no such deduction shall\nbe allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income for such assessment\nyear on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139.”\n\nHe pointed out that the aforesaid provisions contemplate filing of return of income to\nclaim deductions under certain provisions of Chapter

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

80-IE, no such deduction shall\nbe allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income for such assessment\nyear on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139.”\nHe pointed out that the aforesaid provisions contemplate filing of return of income to\nclaim deductions under certain provisions of Chapter

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

80-IE, no such deduction shall\nbe allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income for such assessment\nyear on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139.”\nHe pointed out that the aforesaid provisions contemplate filing of return of income to\nclaim deductions under certain provisions of Chapter

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

80-IE, no such deduction shall\nbe allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income for such assessment\nyear on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139.”\nHe pointed out that the aforesaid provisions contemplate filing of return of income to\nclaim deductions under certain provisions of Chapter

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

reassessment resulting into the demand or proceedings of penalty." (Emphasis supplied) The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore. 28. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597/7 Taxman 13 that