PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

80P was not there. And till date the position is same there is no change. It was not a regular assessment it was a reassessment for the limited purpose or issue and on perusal of the entire record or detailed it cannot be said that the ld. AO has not made inquiries. As admittedly the case of the assessee

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALASANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

80P was not there. And till date the position is same there is no change. It was not a regular assessment it was a reassessment for the limited purpose or issue and on perusal of the entire record or detailed it cannot be said that the ld. AO has not made inquiries. As admittedly the case of the assessee

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

80P(2)(d)\r\nof the Act. The assessee's claim of deduction under chapter VIA was not\r\nallowable as per the provision of section 80AC of the Act and thereby the\r\nclaim was not allowed by disallowing the same and thereby it is clear that\r\nno addition was made on the issue upon which the case

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

80P.\n2.4 This clear disconnect between the reasons recorded and the additions made is fatal to\nthe validity of the reassessment. The law requires that there must be a live link or nexus\nbetween the reasons which formed the foundation of the belief of escapement of income\nand the additions ultimately made in assessment. In the present case, that nexus

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

80P.\n2.4 This clear disconnect between the reasons recorded and the additions made is fatal to\nthe validity of the reassessment. The law requires that there must be a live link or nexus\nbetween the reasons which formed the foundation of the belief of escapement of income\nand the additions ultimately made in assessment. In the present case, that nexus

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

80P.\n2.4 This clear disconnect between the reasons recorded and the additions made is fatal to\nthe validity of the reassessment. The law requires that there must be a live link or nexus\nbetween the reasons which formed the foundation of the belief of escapement of income\nand the additions ultimately made in assessment. In the present case, that nexus

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

80P.\n\n2.4 This clear disconnect between the reasons recorded and the additions made is fatal to\nthe validity of the reassessment. The law requires that there must be a live link or nexus\nbetween the reasons which formed the foundation of the belief of escapement of income\nand the additions ultimately made in assessment. In the present case, that

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

reassessment notice upon him-Held, yes-\n2.4 With regard to the contention of the assessee that the assessment\ncompleted is invalid in absence of notice u/s 143(2) by the DOT, Central\nCircle-1, Jaipur who had completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT\nAct, 1961 on 18/04/2021, it is to be stated here that notice

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

2. Case reopened u/s 148 for limited issue: Further when the very basis of reopening of the case under section 148 was on account of investment in purchase of immovable property, then how it can be said that the AO has failed to make the inquiry, where the scope of inquiry is limited only to the extent of that issue

SOYALA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,TONK vs. ITO, TONK, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section. The second limb of this proviso i.e. for assessing other issues can only be invoked if first limb is satisfied i.e. when an addition/ disallowance is being made on the issue which was formed the basis for initiation of reassessment proceedings. As in the instant case since no addition/ disallowance was made on the reasons framed for issue

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAWATBHATA ROAD vs. BOREKHEDA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, HEAD OFFICE NEAR DWARKADIS

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

80P(2)(d) of the Act. Thus, irregular allowance of deduction resulted in under computation of income of assessee by Rs.1,67,51,945/- involving under charge of tax of Rs.75,73,002/- On the basis of above facts, I have reason to believe that incone amounting Re. 1,67,61,045/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section

ANIL KUMAR BATAR,SIKAR vs. PCIT-JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2-7. Thereafter he\ncompleted assessment at Rs.19,89,250/- vide assessment order u/s\n147/144Bdt.18.03.2023 by taking a reasonable and possible view.\nHere we want to say that if the ld. AO has not examined the issues he\ncould have not made the assessment. When the assessee has filed reply\non the same (PB28-38) with all the details

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

80P - Assessee against impugned order filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of 11 days and sought condonation of delay in filing appeal stating that delay was due to non-availability of its legal consultant - Commissioner (Appeals) refused to condone delay and dismissed appeal in limine - Whether since filing an appeal in tax matters 13 Nirmal Kumar Agrawal

SH. BADALURAM,FAULADPUR, ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the CIT(A) who is the competent authority to authorize the reassessment notice has to apply his mind and form an opinion. In the present case, approval granted by the competent authority is a mechanical approval and action has been taken mechanically because on perusing the reasons recorded it demonstrates that Joint

BALITHAL GRAM SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,TONK vs. RJN-W-(107)(5), TONK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalbalithal Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Balithal Uniara Tonk, 304024 Pan No.: Aabab4614R ...... Appellant Vs.

80P of the Act claimed by the assessee, which is not sustainable in law. No doubt, a separate proceeding u/s. 148 of the Act can be issued against the assessee on this issue, if possible, but in this proceeding, action of the authorities below is not sustainable as per law. Our view is being further fortified by the authority