SARITA GUPTA,ALWAR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

rectification proceedings u/s 154 were initiated in the year 2011, however, AO without dropping the proceedings or without passing any order u/s 154, initiated the reassessment proceedings on the same issue in the year 2013 and thereafter, completed the assessment by means of order u/s 143(3) read with section 147

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

u/s 154 and the ld. CIT(A),though accepting the plea of assessee, erred in not specifically mentioning it while accepting the ground of appeal of the assessee” Submission: 1.1 All the conditions set out in Rule 27 of ITAT Rules fulfilled: At the outset, it is submitted that the Rule 27 of ITAT Rules read as under: “Respondent

G.S. DREAM HOME LLP,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), Dr. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

rectification proceedings u/s 154 were initiated in the year 2011, however, AO without dropping the proceedings or without passing any order u/s 154, initiated the reassessment proceedings on the same issue in the year 2013 and thereafter, completed the assessment by means of order u/s 143(3) read with section 147

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)

154 (Bom)held that “The basic postulate which underlines section 147 is the formation of the belief by the Assessing Officer that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that such is the case before he proceeds to issue a notice under section 147. The reasons which

MOHAMMED SIRAJ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO, WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment not assessment. 2. That the AO has erred on facts and in law by invoking the Section 154 for rectification of mistake apparent on record as the issue involved are not covered under mistake apparent on record under the scope of 154 of the Act. Kindly quash the rectification order u/s 154 or delete the addition. 3.1 Brief

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

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

reassess the earlier\nassessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can't\nusurp

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

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

rectification u/s 154 of the Act (though\nnot conceding) instead of invoking Section 263. In this regard kindly refer\nto the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 286 CTR (SC) 113,\nwherein it is held that:\n“9. Under the Act different shades of power have been conferred on\ndifferent authorities to deal with orders of assessment passed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings as well as analysis/examination thereof during the course of reassessment proceedings and besides, other information/documentation relied upon by the Assessing officer during the course of reassessment proceedings to arrive at his findings and which forms the basis of subject addition of undisclosed investment in the impugned order. These include information received from DCIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur prior

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings as well as analysis/examination thereof during the course of reassessment proceedings and besides, other information/documentation relied upon by the Assessing officer during the course of reassessment proceedings to arrive at his findings and which forms the basis of subject addition of undisclosed investment in the impugned order. These include information received from DCIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur prior

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

reassess\ncannot sustain.\"\n\n4.\nHon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Excel Commodity and\nDerivative Pvt. Ltd vide appeal no. APOT/132/2022 & IA No.GA/1/2022 dated\n29.08.2022 held as under:\n\n“.......the information has been lightly used which resulted in issuance of notice.\nAs pointed out earlier, the assessee had submitted the explanation to the notice

RAJENDRA KUMAR MEENA,GANGAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2 SAWAMADHOPUR, GANGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression ‘approved’ says nothing. It is not as if the CIT has to record elaborate reasons for agreeing with the noting put up. At the same time, satisfaction has to be recorded of the given case which can be reflected in the briefest possible

SHRIVINAYAK SAMANVAY BUILDESTATES LLP,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as having been withdrawn as indicated hereinabove

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

154 of the Act, on 19.05.2023 and the finding mentioned in last para of rectification order made by Ld. A.O. is as follows:- "In view of the above, the fresh reassessment proceedings u/s 148 for the AY 2015'16 initiated on 28.07.2022, is pending in this case. Therefore, the assessment order was passed on 20.03.2022 has become infructuous

SHRI KRISHNA BOTHRA 302, VINAYAK APARTMENT PRITHVIRAJ ROAD, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6 (2), JAIPUR, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 967/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 Krishna Bothra, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 302, Vinayak Apartment, Pritiviraj Ward 6(2) Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Arzpb 5089 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri H.M. Singhvi (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/05/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11 Wherein Sole Effective Ground Of Appeal Has Been Taken & The Same Is Reproduced As Under: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Went Wrong In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 9,41,283/- Of Interest U/S 234A(1) Whereas It Should Be Charged As Per Sec. 234A(3) Which Is Bad In Law.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

154 increasing the interest charged u/s 234A from Rs. 266950/- to 941983/-u/s 234A(1) instead of interest u/s 234A(3). The result thereof was increase of interest from Rs. 266950/- to Rs. 941983/- . The question now arises whether the interest u/s 234A should be charged for a period of 19 months as per the provisions

SHRI KBL SHARMA MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL & CULTURAL SOCIETY,DEFENCE PUBLIC SCHOOL, E-BLOCK, AMRAPALI CIRCLE, VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-1,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147/- in subsequent years and vide letter dt. 21.10.2020 (PB 16) requested for early disposal of rectification application. The Ld. CIT(A),NFAC however, held that assessee only submitted application for early settlement of case but not enclosed any other detail/document, i.e. assessment order, ITR, reassessment order, Form No.35, order of CIT(A), etc. and has not responded to notice

HARI NARAYAN MEENA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JAIPUR

reassessment\neven though fully aware of the related facts. On the facts and in the\ncircumstances of the appellant, the learned AO has legally and factually\nerred in making in repeating the disallowances for computing the\ncapital gains.\n3. The AO erred in not following principal of the natural justice, by\nfailing to allow personal hearing as requested and failing

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Us. In This Appeal The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can‟t usurp

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act without appreciating true and correct facts of the case and documentary evidences brought on record by the assessee Our submissions:- At the outset, your humble appellant would like to bring your kind attention that notice issued u/s. 148 (PB Page 78)of the Act in our case was Time-barred and passed