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

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from\nform 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the\nappellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any\ndocumentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter\nVI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

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

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from\nform 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the\nappellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any\ndocumentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter\nVI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

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

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from\nform 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the\nappellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any\ndocumentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter\nVI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

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

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from\nform 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the\nappellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any\ndocumentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter\nVI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

80C. On receipt of\ninformation from ITO (Hq.) vide his letter no. 657 dated 02.07.2015 (PB Pages 3-\n4), the AO recorded reason on 27.03.2017 mentioning that \"As per information,\nthe assessee has sold the plot no.72, Gayatri Nagar at Rs.20,00,000/- on\n04.11.2009 through the sale deed which was executed by the Sub-Registrar VIII,\nJaipur. The assessee

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess completed assessments.\nThough the aforesaid observations were rendered in the context of completed\nassessments, the same position would prevail when it comes to assessments which\nabate pursuant to the issuance of a notice under Section 153C.\nIn light of the jurisdictional lapse and lack of incriminating evidence, the addition of\n6,95,634/- under Section 69C is untenable

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess completed assessments.\nThough the aforesaid observations were rendered in the context of completed\nassessments, the same position would prevail when it comes to assessments which\nabate pursuant to the issuance of a notice under Section 153C.\nIn light of the jurisdictional lapse and lack of incriminating evidence, the addition of\n6,95,634/- under Section 69C is untenable

SHUBHAM JAIN,TONK, RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - TONK, MAHA DEVALI, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassess completed assessments. Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. Though the aforesaid observations were rendered in the context of completed assessments, the same position would prevail when it comes to assessments which abate pursuant to the issuance of a notice under Section 153C. In light of the jurisdictional lapse and lack of incriminating evidence, the addition of ₹6,95,634/- under Section

ROHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassess completed assessments. Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. Though the aforesaid observations were rendered in the context of completed assessments, the same position would prevail when it comes to assessments which abate pursuant to the issuance of a notice under Section 153C. In light of the jurisdictional lapse and lack of incriminating evidence, the addition of ₹6,95,634/- under Section

MOHIT JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

reassess completed assessments. Shubham Jain & Ors., Tonk. Though the aforesaid observations were rendered in the context of completed assessments, the same position would prevail when it comes to assessments which abate pursuant to the issuance of a notice under Section 153C. In light of the jurisdictional lapse and lack of incriminating evidence, the addition of ₹6,95,634/- under Section

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

80C of the Act amounting to Rs. 51,960/-. The assessee being aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A)-2, Udaipur, who in turn confirmed the order of the AO vide order dated: 28.06.2019. The assessee being further aggrieved with this order of the Ld. CIT (A)-2, Udaipur preferred an appeal before the coordinate

SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD -2(2), KOTA

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

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

80C of the Income Tax Act 7. Under the facts and circumstances, the Ld. A.O. has erred by initiating penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.’’ 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who was serving in Rajasthan Police as a sub-inspector during the year under consideration

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 59/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 7/58, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Ward 4(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Advpa 6150 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Pravin Kr. Saraswat (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 27/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Learned C.I.T. (A) Has Erred For Not Considering The Issue For Validity Of Issue Notice U/S 148 Of I.T. Act, 1961, While There Was No Escapement Of Income On Part Of Assessee. The Initiation Of Proceedings Was Only On Behest Of I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Who Has Intimated To A.O. For Advancement Of Loan Rs.53,95,000/- Given By Assessee To Pooja Agarwal, While Concern A.O. Has Accepted Said Loan In Her Hands After Detailed Examination. Hence Initiation Of 2

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), wherein following grounds have been taken. “1. The Learned C.I.T. (A) has erred for not considering the issue for validity of issue notice U/s 148 of I.T. Act, 1961, while there was no escapement of income on part of assessee. The initiation of proceedings was only on behest

LATE SH. SHEKHAR DHARIWAL THROUGH L/H SMT. NIKITA DHARIWAL,DHARIWAL BHAWAN, SHASTRI MARKET, KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 159(2)(b), it is permissible for AO to issue fresh notice u/s 148 against legal representative, provided that same is not barred by limitation; he cannot continue proceedings based on an invalid notice issued u/s 148 to dead assessee—In present case, writ application succeeded— Notice issued by revenue u/s 148 were quashed” Alamelu Veerappan

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

80C) 39,375/- 4. As discussed in para11 above. (other source) 55,600/- 5. As discussed in para 12 above. (u/s 69B loans) 1,30,50,000/- 6. As discussed in para 13above. (Intt. O.S.) 3,08,080/- Total income 1,37,03,680/- Agricultural income 1,00,000/- 7. Aggrieved from the order of the assessing officer, assessee preferred

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

80C) 39,375/- 4. As discussed in para11 above. (other source) 55,600/- 5. As discussed in para 12 above. (u/s 69B loans) 1,30,50,000/- 6. As discussed in para 13above. (Intt. O.S.) 3,08,080/- Total income 1,37,03,680/- Agricultural income 1,00,000/- 7. Aggrieved from the order of the assessing officer, assessee preferred

GAJENDRA NATH SRIVASTAV THROUGH L/H VIPIN DEVI SRIVASTAV,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

80C and 80TTA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively. 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) restored the grounds of appeal raised before him who set aside the assessment order to the file of the AO to decide the issue afresh in accordance with the principles of natural justice