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

reassessment process invalid in law. The AO's\naction in initiating proceedings u/s 147 is based on conjecture and suspicion, and falls\nfoul of the binding legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various\nHigh Courts.\nIn light of the above legal and factual position, it is respectfully submitted that the\nreassessment proceedings-initiated u/s 147

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

reassessment process invalid in law. The AO's\naction in initiating proceedings u/s 147 is based on conjecture and suspicion, and falls\nfoul of the binding legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various\nHigh Courts.\nIn light of the above legal and factual position, it is respectfully submitted that the\nreassessment proceedings-initiated u/s 147

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

reassessment process invalid in law. The AO's\naction in initiating proceedings u/s 147 is based on conjecture and suspicion, and falls\nfoul of the binding legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various\nHigh Courts.\nIn light of the above legal and factual position, it is respectfully submitted that the\nreassessment proceedings-initiated u/s 147

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

reassessment process invalid in law. The AO's\naction in initiating proceedings u/s 147 is based on conjecture and suspicion, and falls\nfoul of the binding legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various\nHigh Courts.\n\nIn light of the above legal and factual position, it is respectfully submitted that the\nreassessment proceedings-initiated u/s

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

reassessment is as follows: Assessment Order u/s 263 Order u/s 263 Year 143(3) Invoked 147 Invoked 2010-2011 28.03.13 NO NO 2011-2012 07.03.14 NO 18.12.17 NO 2012-2013 27.03.15 NO 17.12.18 NO 2013-2014 21.03.16 NO 17.12.18 NO 2014-2015 25.11.16 NO 17.12.18 NO 15 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue

deduction u/s 80IA the assessee has not considered the loss of Rs. 1,36,34,565/- in respect of two units. The assessee again Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs.ACIT, Jaipur raised the objections against the notice issued u/s 148 but the AO did not accept the objection of the assessee and passed the reassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORTATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue

deduction u/s 80IA the assessee has not considered the loss of Rs. 1,36,34,565/- in respect of two units. The assessee again Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs.ACIT, Jaipur raised the objections against the notice issued u/s 148 but the AO did not accept the objection of the assessee and passed the reassessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,SETU BHAWAN, JHALANA DOONGRI, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act can be made when AO has reason to believe that the income of the assessee chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. First proviso to section 147 provides that where an assessment u/s 143(3) has been made for the relevant AY, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and cross

Bench: The Hearing.”

deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 29,91,67,100/-. Thereafter the AO issue a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 23.03.2012 whereby proposed to disallowance the expenditure of Rs. 1,28,37,888/- incurred on maintenance of transferred area. The reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground is partly allowed for statistical purposes

147 of the IT Act, 1961 for the Asstt. Year 2010-11. The escapement was on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts.” 13. As per the Assessing officer, the material facts therefore relates to not charging the proportionate head office expenses on account of establishment & financial expenses on windmills for the purposes

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

147 of the Income-tax Act would squarely apply to the case of the assessee. We find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed." 19. In an identical circumstances, a learned single Judge of this Court considered the issue in the decision reported in Fenner (India) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income

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

reassessment for assessment year 2011-2012 was initiated u/s. 147 on account of unverifiable purchases and assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed on 18.12.2017 [PB 52-66]. Benefit of deduction

M/S JAIPUR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for A

147 of the Act (only for A.Y 2011-12- & 2012- 13). (ii) Whether the ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing deduction u/s 80P (2)(d) of the Act on proportionate basis instead of on the entire 3. On the first issue which relates to AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 where assessee has challenged

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 131 on the address of above companies requesting furnishing of books of accounts, details of bank accounts, copies of Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur ITR and other documents, but the same could not be served due to non-existence of the companies on their respective given addresses. From the Database of the department, it is gathered that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Mr. Manchanda, learned counsel\nfor the appellant, took us through several sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since

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)

147, therefore, cannot be sustained. As the error here is one of jurisdiction it is not necessary for the assessee to have recourse to the remedies by way of appeal, revision, etc. It is well settled that when a jurisdictional error is brought to the notice of this court such errors are capable of being corrected by this court

SMT. NIRMALA GOYAL,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147, the AO has allowed the deduction to the tune of Rs. 1,20,50,000/- vide

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

deduction on account of the expenditure incurred of Rs.8,00,000/- in respect of which payment was made in a sum exceeding Rs.20,000/- otherwise than by crossed cheques or draft, as per the provisions of the Act, as laid down u/s 40A(3) of the Act.” 5. Being aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, the assessee has filed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

u/s 148 of the Act on\n28/03/2019 merely as a process of review, the reassessment is not legally invalid. The\nappellant relied on various judicial decisions that the AO cannot reopen concluded\nassessment merely to re-examine any transaction for non-application of his mind on the\nmaterials already with him.\n\n5.13 The Hon’ble Supreme Court