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 143(3) on 27.03.2014 in the case of the appellant for the A.Y 2012-13 wherein all the information related to the share capital had been provided by the appellant and after due application of mind, the assessment order was passed. 5.24 Section 147 of the Act reads as under. "147. If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe

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

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 147 by disallowing the claim of additional depreciation to the extent of Rs.5,37,17,642/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) who has upheld the validity of reassessment

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

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

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and cross

Bench: The Hearing.”

147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of 'mere change of opinion', which cannot be per se reason to reopen. One must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power

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

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: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.453/Jp/2024 On The Following Grounds; “(I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,33,606/- Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Has Shown Bogus Purchase Of Rs 1,73,34,424/- During The Year From A Bogus Concern. 3

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

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

u/s 139(1) of the Act. The total income of the trust (before allowing exemption under sections 11 and 12) exceeds the maximum amounts which is not chargeable to tax, it is required to file its return in Form ITR-7, before the date specified in section 139. However, no return of income was filed. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction

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