ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

reassessment [or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in which order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner

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

80G etc.). However, the given notice u/s 133(6) in no manner shows (or alleges) that some wrong claim was made by the assessee with a view to conceal and/or to furnish inaccurate particulars. The notice simply required the assessee to provide certain information related to/ in support of the deductions claimed. It is not the case

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

80G etc.). However, the given notice u/s 133(6) in no manner shows (or alleges) that some wrong claim was made by the assessee with a view to conceal and/or to furnish inaccurate particulars. The notice simply required the assessee to provide certain information related to/ in support of the deductions claimed. It is not the case

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

80G etc.). However, the given notice u/s 133(6) in no manner shows (or alleges) that some wrong claim was made by the assessee with a view to conceal and/or to furnish inaccurate particulars. The notice simply required the assessee to provide certain information related to/ in support of the deductions claimed. It is not the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment proceedings are quashed and set-aside. 19. Now, we refer to the appeal filed by the Revenue wherein the findings of the ld CIT(A) have been challenged. 20. In this regard, the ld DR relied on the findings of the AO and our reference was drawn to Para 3.1 to 3.4 of AO’s order which reads

SHRI BHANWAR LAL KHICHI,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-3, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment.” Thus, it is settled proposition of law that the notice issued by the authority other than the prescribed authority is not valid and consequential order passed by the ld. CIT(E) is without jurisdiction. The show cause notice confers the jurisdiction to proceed and to pass the order. In case the notice itself is not valid then the jurisdiction

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings. This being the case, the assessment\norder could not be subjected to revision u/s 263 and the action of Ld.\nPr.CIT in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 could not be sustained in the eyes\nof law. Similar is the view of the Tribunal in assessee's group concern i.e.\nM/s Reliance Corporate IT Park