SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

reassessment was completed vide order dated\n26.03.2015 by making a further disallowance of Rs.1,38,95,995/- u/s\n40(a)(ia) of the Act (and the total reassessed income of Rs.\n5,97,80,77,790/-). However, this was followed by a notice u/s 263 with\nreference to the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. 147 of the\nAct

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\nproceedings initiated in the present case are fundamentally flawed, as they are vitiated by\nan incorrect assumption of facts and absence of any tangible material at the stage of\nrecording of reasons. It is a well-settled principle of law that the formation of belief u/s 147\nmust rest upon correct, cogent, and relevant material. Where such belief

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\nproceedings initiated in the present case are fundamentally flawed, as they are vitiated by\nan incorrect assumption of facts and absence of any tangible material at the stage of\nrecording of reasons. It is a well-settled principle of law that the formation of belief u/s 147\nmust rest upon correct, cogent, and relevant material. Where such belief

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\nproceedings initiated in the present case are fundamentally flawed, as they are vitiated by\nan incorrect assumption of facts and absence of any tangible material at the stage of\nrecording of reasons. It is a well-settled principle of law that the formation of belief u/s 147\nmust rest upon correct, cogent, and relevant material. Where such belief

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\nproceedings initiated in the present case are fundamentally flawed, as they are vitiated by\nan incorrect assumption of facts and absence of any tangible material at the stage of\nrecording of reasons. It is a well-settled principle of law that the formation of belief u/s 147\nmust rest upon correct, cogent, and relevant material. Where such belief

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

disallowance could be made u/s 14A on such investments. The\nfunds available in both the years is tabulated as under:\n\n| Assessment Years | Average value of APB Investment made | Share Holders fund

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

disallowance could be made u/s 14A on such investments. The\nfunds available in both the years is tabulated as under:\n\n| Assessment\n| Average value of APB\n| Share Holders fund\n| APB\n| Years\n| Investment made

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

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 u/s.10AA was partially disallowed

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 of the Act on 01.03.2013. Further, the AO issued a noticed u/s 148 on 25.03.2014 proposed to disallow the claim of deduction u/s 80IA on interest and other incomes. Thus, it is clear that after completing the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act as well as reassessment

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 147 of the Act has filed a affidavit before the ld. AO stating that he has never undertaken any F&O transaction with Shri Ajay Gangwal and ledger found during the course of search at Shri Ajay Gangwal is not pertaining to him. Further he also challenged the authenticity of Ledger as same was neither clear nor sealed & signed

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 147. The action of Id. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the reassessment proceedings. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Id. AO has erred in re- opening the case of the assessee by issuing notice under section

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

Reassessment—Income escaping assessment—Validity thereof— Case of assessee was selected for scrutiny as per provisions of section 147 and 151 and accordingly notice u/s 148 was issued to assessee—Proceedings u/s 147/148 were initiated after recording reasons on basis of information received from Investigation Wing of Department on basis of search and seizure operation—During course of assessment proceedings

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

Reassessment—Income escaping assessment—Validity thereof— Case of assessee was selected for scrutiny as per provisions of section 147 and 151 and accordingly notice u/s 148 was issued to assessee—Proceedings u/s 147/148 were initiated after recording reasons on basis of information received from Investigation Wing of Department on basis of search and seizure operation—During course of assessment proceedings

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

147 and other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.” In view of above, notice issued u/s 148 without serving the notice and the consequential assessment order passed by non jurisdictional AO be quashed. Ground No.2 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.5,26,000/- u/s

MOHIT METALS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. CIT (APPEALS), NFAC

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

disallowance of Rs.18,000/- deserves to be deleted 3. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,66,550/- made by AO u/s 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the reason that the addition was made without any basis merely on conjectures and surmises. Accordingly, the impugned addition of Rs.2,66,550/- deserves

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

147 and other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.” In view of above, notice issued u/s 148 without serving the notice and the consequential assessment order passed by non jurisdictional AO be quashed. Ground No.2 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.5,26,000/- u/s

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

disallowing deduction claimed by the assessee under section 54F Rs 94,39,201/- and the learned CIT(A) has erred in not deciding alternate Ground No.4 of the assessee which was before him on this issue.’ 2. The learned AO has erred in reopening the case of the assessee after rejecting most genuine objections of the assessee against reopening