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 143(3) on\n27.03.2014 in the case of the appellant for the A.Y 2012-13 wherein all the\ninformation related to the share capital had been provided by the appellant and\nafter due application of mind, the assessment order was passed.\n5.24 Section 147 of the Act reads as under.\n\"147. If the Assessing Officer has reason

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)

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A and the same was considered and accepted by the AO then the AO is not permitted to reopen the assessment to review its order as it would amount to change of opinion. The Hon’ble Madras High court in case of CIT vs. Remedies Ltd. (Supra) has held in paras 10 to 12 as under

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 143(3) on\n27.03.2014 in the case of the appellant for the A.Y 2012-13 wherein all the\ninformation related to the share capital had been provided by the appellant and\nafter due application of mind, the assessment order was passed.\n\n5.24 Section 147 of the Act reads as under.\n\n\"147. If the Assessing Officer

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

u/s 143(3) on\n27.03.2014 in the case of the appellant for the A.Y 2012-13 wherein all the\ninformation related to the share capital had been provided by the appellant and\nafter due application of mind, the assessment order was passed.\n5.24 Section 147 of the Act reads as under.\n\"147. If the Assessing Officer has reason

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A and the same was considered and accepted by the AO then the AO is not permitted to reopen the assessment to review its order as it would amount to change of opinion. The Hon’ble Madras High court in case of CIT vs. Remedies Ltd. (Supra) has held in paras 10 to 12 as under

COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-VI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

depreciation. We are therefore of the considered view that the reasons recorded are self-contradictory and cannot form the basis to initiate reassessment proceedings. On this ground alone, the reopening of assessment u/s 147

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 proceeding. Therefore, he cannot take a plea now that the proceedings were invalid. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Honda siel Power Products Ltd. vs. DCIT (2011) 197 Taxman 415 (Del.) has stated that the law postulates a duty on every assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts for its assessment

PRADEEP KUMAR,JHUJHUNU vs. ITO WARD -2, JHUJHUNU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

u/s. 147 for deposits in bank amounting Rs.11,00,000—Held, Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., 331 ITR 236 has held that sec. 147 has this effect that AO has to assess or reassess income ("such income") which escaped assessment and which was basis of formation of belief and if he does

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

depreciation. The return was processed u/s 143 (1) and no notice u/s 143 (2) was issued. Thereafter Ld. A.O. initiated reassessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s 148 on 28-03-2019 after recording following reasons: “Your letter dated 11.04.2019 wherein you have requested to provide grounds of reasons for opening the case. In this regard, I am submitting

PADAM KUMAR GOYAL,TONK vs. ITO WARD-TONK, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, TONK

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

147 are held to be valid and appeal of the appellant on this count is dismissed. Issue of validity on merits of addition in the assessment order:- (xiii) It was found that in current bank account maintained by the assessee with ICICI, Nasirabad (a/c No.175605000037) in the name of his proprietory concern M/s Gautam Trading, Jaipur Road, Industrial Area Kekdi

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 proceedings on ground that assessee had made incorrect claim of additional depreciation on captive power plant. However, it was found that assessee had made true and full disclosure of all relevant facts relating to claim of additional depreciation and also in respect of claim for grant of deduction u/s 80-IA. Further, a separate audit report in prescribed form

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 68, not merely the peak. Relied on: PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) Pr. CIT v. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 138 taxmann.com 499 (SC) 7. Misplaced Reliance on Abhisar Buildwell (SC) Inapplicable The assessee's claim that reassessment under Section 147 is barred due to Abhisar Buildwell v. PCIT (SC) is wholly

KAILASH CHAND,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceeding the AO himself relying on the final accounts furnished by A/R contended hypothetical discrepancies noted from the submission and details in ROI later on alleging non filling of documents/details, he made disallowance in para 1-5 but partly with reference to the 3 items of expense claimed out of total 14 items (being Truck operating expense, Depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

depreciation. The return was\nprocessed u/s 143 (1) and no notice u/s 143 (2) was issued. Thereafter Ld. A.O.\ninitiated reassessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s 148 on 28-03-2019\nafter recording following reasons:\n“Your letter dated 11.04.2019 wherein you have requested to provide grounds of\nreasons for opening the case. In this regard, I am submitting

SYLVAN GREENS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

depreciation of Rs.10,77,958/-. The assessee was required to subtract the subsidy amount from the assets to ascertain the WDV assets. Accordingly, the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after recording the reasons for reopening and obtaining approval from the competent authority. 2.2 The notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and duly served

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation etc—\nTribunal after taking note of factual position, more particularly, that addition\nwhich was made in reassessment proceedings having been deleted by CIT(A)\nreassessment on heads which were not part of reasons recorded for reopening\nassessment is not sustainable—Held, in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.\nVersus Income-Tax Officer

ADITYA CEMENT,BEHROR vs. ITO, BEHROR

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

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

depreciation. Finally, it filed ITR on 26.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.30,00,650/- During assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised computation including the surrendered amount under the head “Income from business & profession” and explaining that there being no column in the ITR to show “Surrendered business income”, it had shown the same under the head “Income from other

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the\ncase may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to\n153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).\n\n5\n\nITA No. 1393/JPR/2024\nShri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur.\n\n2.2 The expression 'believe" in section 147 requires an objective satisfaction based on definite\nmaterial