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

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO 7(3), JAIPUR

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

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

Natural Justice. " 3. The learned CIT (Appeal) erred in law and on facts in adjudicating the appeal filed against order dated 6th March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Jaipur u/s 144 r.w.t. 147 of Income Tax Act by way of justifying and retaining the Additions made to the tune

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(3), JAIPUR

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

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

Natural Justice. " 3. The learned CIT (Appeal) erred in law and on facts in adjudicating the appeal filed against order dated 6th March, 2013 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Jaipur u/s 144 r.w.t. 147 of Income Tax Act by way of justifying and retaining the Additions made to the tune

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

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

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. 68 of the Act towards receipts of Share Application Money as follows: Application Money as follows: ITA No. 872 & others/JP/2024 Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur 4. The reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee suffer from The reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee suffer from The reassessment proceedings initiated against

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

reassessment under Section 147, 148 & 148A of the Act in a faceless manner. Proceedings under Section 147 and Section 148 of the Act would now have to be taken as per the 34 ITA No. 656/JP/2023 & CO No. 06/JP/2023 ITO vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni procedure legislated by the Parliament in respect of reopening/ re-assessment i.e., proceedings under Section 148A

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

justice. 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted that the reasons advanced by assessee for condonation of delay of 19 days are sufficient to condone the delay which has merit. Thus, we concur with the submission of the assessee and condone the delay of 19 days in filing the appeal

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

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)

natural justice and order so passed deserves to be quashed and addition so made be deleted.” 6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records : PAGE S.No PARTICULARS NO. Copy of Acknowledgement of Income tax return filed u/s 139(4) dated 1 1. 01.11.2017 26 Sh. Kapil Taneja vs. DCIT

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)

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

M/S. BANSIWALA IRON & STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1388/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke M/S Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, D.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, Somani Building, S.C. Link Vs. Circle-3, Road, Loha Mandi, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadfb 2375 A Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri Dewang Gargieya (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

natural justice and a party has been deprived of its valuable rights of being heard effectively yet, an order has been passed containing huge additions, such an action has to be considered as having been done without jurisdiction and vitiating the entire order which, results into as nullity and is not case of mere irregularity. He relied on the decision

GOYAL VEGOILS LIMITED ,KASAR ,KOTA vs. DCIT , CIRCLE -2, KOTA

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 143(3) r.w.s.148. From the reasons recorded, it is clear that the impugned reopening proceedings were on the borrowed satisfaction. No independent opinion was formed by Assessing Officer in the assessee’s case under consideration. Under the circumstances, the assumption of the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the Act is bad in law and needs

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\norder so passed deserves to be held bad in law.”\n\n2.2 As regards admission of additional ground so taken by assessee is\nconcerned, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that though legal\nground against order passed u/s 147 has been taken requesting it to\nconsider as bad in law, however, for the sake of clarity, additional

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

natural justice. Prayer: In view of the above facts, circumstances and legal position of the proceeding u/s 147/148, assessment order as well the Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) may kindly be quashed and also the entire addition and the penalty may kindly be deleted in full and oblige.” The ld. AR further filed the Paper Book Index to support

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

natural justice. Prayer: In view of the above facts, circumstances and legal position of the proceeding u/s 147/148, assessment order as well the Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) may kindly be quashed and also the entire addition and the penalty may kindly be deleted in full and oblige.” The ld. AR further filed the Paper Book Index to support

SHRI HARI RAM YADAV,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income ...”. Thus it is evident that whereas section 148 specifically requires serving a notice on the assessee, section 263 simply talks of giving an opportunity

JAI DEEP SINGH,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

natural justice. All the case-laws relied upon by the appellant are not directly applicable to the facts of the case as they were rendered as per peculiar facts and circumstances. The appellant failed to explain how the ratio of these judgments are applicable in his case, particularly when no return of income was filed and no regular assessment u/s