AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018,\nwhich was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the\nnotice's u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018,\nwhich was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the\nnotice's u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018,\nwhich was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the\nnotice's u/s

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

u/s. 148 of the Act and thereafter the assessed income.\nIt is not legally possible that for making assessment the ROI filed u/s 148 is\nnot considered and is to be considered for imposition of penalty, whereas\nthe ROI filed earlier u/s 139 cannot. To support this view he relied upon the\nvarious decision cited in the written submission

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018,\nwhich was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the\nnotice's u/s

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

reassessments under section 147 read with section 143(3) for both the years and made the additions on account of income from house property by determining the annual letting value of the closing stock being 25,810 sq. ft. of constructed area @ Rs. 24/- per sq. ft. for the A.Y. 2010-11 and 19,105 sq. ft. of constructed area

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

reassessments under section 147 read with section 143(3) for both the years and made the additions on account of income from house property by determining the annual letting value of the closing stock being 25,810 sq. ft. of constructed area @ Rs. 24/- per sq. ft. for the A.Y. 2010-11 and 19,105 sq. ft. of constructed area

LATE SH. SHEKHAR DHARIWAL THROUGH L/H SMT. NIKITA DHARIWAL,DHARIWAL BHAWAN, SHASTRI MARKET, KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment proceedings were initiated and notice u/s 148 was issued in name of dead person. In response to notice issued by AO, wife of deceased had intimated death of assessee. However, AO proceeded to complete assessment in name of legal heir without issuing notice u/s 148. It was held that proceedings were initiated against dead person after death of assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. VINOD KUMAR JHARCHUR HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application filed under rule 27

house in allowing deduction under section property 154 of Rs.2429590/- only instead of actual expenses incurred of Rs.6154101/- thereby making addition of Rs.3724511/- Thus, from above it is clear that the assessee has taken a specific ground of appeal before the ld. CIT(A) with regard to the validity of the rectification proceedings on the ground that such a rectification

SAVITA GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO, DELHI

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

property and stamp duty is collected only on the guideline value. Hence, there 7 Savita Gupta vs. ITO is suppression in sales by the seller also as the amount received in cash would be treated as unaccounted sales. In view of the factual position, the source of investment is treated as unexplained in the hands of the appellant

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

House, 2nd Crossing, Haldiyon Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur respectively) are related to Shri Prakash Chand Kothari (PCK). As per records and phone directory, the said details pertain to the assessee (i.e. Shri Prakash Chand Kothari of KGK Group). Hence all the above transactions of cash loans pertain to the assessee. 10. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, referred to the statement

SHRI PRAKASH CHAND KOTHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

House, 2nd Crossing, Haldiyon Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur respectively) are related to Shri Prakash Chand Kothari (PCK). As per records and phone directory, the said details pertain to the assessee (i.e. Shri Prakash Chand Kothari of KGK Group). Hence all the above transactions of cash loans pertain to the assessee. 10. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, referred to the statement

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house property, business capital gains and other sources. Return of income for\nthe year under appeal was filed u/s 139(1) on 31.03.2012 declaring the total income at\nRs.2,29,200/- (APB 1-3). The assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/ 147 of the Act\nat the total income of Rs.1,48,63,860/-, wherein addition of Rs.1

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

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

house property, capital gain, business or profession. The\nrelevant provision is reproduced hereinbelow :\n1.\nS. 115BBE\"(1) Where the total income of an assessee,\nincludes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section\n69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the\nreturn of income furnished under section 139; or 2. determined by\nthe Assessing

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)

properties against which the Assessing Officer has initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act situates in Punjab, transactions have also been held at Punjab and admittedly the assessee is also residing in Punjab, we are of the considered view that the Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward-1, Sri Ganganagar, had no jurisdiction to frame the subjected assessment, consequently the assessment

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house hold expenses, it is noticed that there are 05\nmembers. The assessee has shown only income of Rs.1,75,710/- and\nagriculture income of Rs.34,750/-, thus total income comes to\nRs.2,10,460/-. Looking to the members of family, such declared income is\nvery nominal and only for running day to day expenses. Based on that\ndiscussion

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

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

PUNEET SINGHVI,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA

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 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The appellant has not produced any material to controvert the finding of AO with any document, evidence which he could rely upon. It has been recorded by the AO that the appellant did not file any return in response to notice u/s 148.On the facts and circumstances, the appellant has not made