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

The appeal stands allowed

section 148, before making the assessment u/s 147, the AO is required to serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish return of his income. Thus service of notice u/s 148 is a condition precedent to make the assessment u/s 147. In the present case, as evident from the assessment order, AO issued notice u/s

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

reassessment proceedings initiated by notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were not legally transferred by the Chief Commissioner/Director General, Kolkata after recording and communicating the reasons and providing opportunity to the appellant as prescribed u/s 127(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case

VINITA BAJORIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

section 147, and • The reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 be kindly held to be without jurisdiction, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: S. No. Particulars Page Nos. 1. Synopsis of the Case

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)

u/s. 124 was not applicable as Assessee was filling his return of income with ITO at Chennai—ITAT held that Assessee was regularly filing his returns of income at Chennai and at time of issuance of notice under Section 148, ITO at Suratgarh had no jurisdiction over Assessee—Held, High Court found no error or illegality in observations

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)

u/s. 124 was not applicable as Assessee was filling his return of income with ITO at Chennai—ITAT held that Assessee was regularly filing his returns of income at Chennai and at time of issuance of notice under Section 148, ITO at Suratgarh had no jurisdiction over Assessee—Held, High Court found no error or illegality in observations

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

147. 11 Reasons for the belief that the income Reasons as per annexure page has escaped assessment 1 to 11. In view of the reasons it is requested that necessary approval as laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 151 of the IT Act, 1961 may kindly be accorded. Dated 30-03-2016 (G P Awasthi), Income Tax Officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

147. 11 Reasons for the belief that the income Reasons as per annexure page has escaped assessment 1 to 11. In view of the reasons it is requested that necessary approval as laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 151 of the IT Act, 1961 may kindly be accorded. Dated 30-03-2016 (G P Awasthi), Income Tax Officer

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

u/s 147 is wrongly assumed and therefore the entire reassessment is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements where re-opening was quashed if the same was based on wrong facts:  Narain Dutt Sharma vs. ITO [2018] 91 taxmann.com 463 (Jaipur - Trib.) – Copy enclosed [CLC 1-6]. “As we have noted above

DCIT, CC-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S. DANGAYACH HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

147, it is verifiable that no where name of assessee company is mentioned. In the details in column ‘From’ under the abbreviation ‘HMD’ is mentioned. The inference drawn by the A.O. on his own on the basis of alleged noting on the alleged seized papers under the head ‘HMD’ as Dangayach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. That in the reasons recorded itself

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 vide order dated 31.12.2014 whereby the AO disallowed the deduction u/s 80IA on interest income including penal interest and other income items. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT(A) and also raised the objects against the validity of reopening however, the ld. CIT(A) rejected the objections raised by the assessee against

SYLVAN GREENS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section.] (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. In Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) v. Hiren Bhatť [2011] 12 taxmann.com 198/202 Taxman 99/334 ITR 25 (Guj.), it was held by the Gujarat High Court that

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 143(3)\nof I. Tax Act. This is itself apparent from the reasons so recorded wherein the alleged amount of\nescapement has mentioned incorrect, the amount alleged to be received from certain entities was\nactually did not received and form & nature of alleged accommodation entries not mention in\nreasons so recorded. Therefore, the correlation between the underlying material

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

127 dated 02.11.2018 of the PCIT-1, Kolkata for investigation being a case linked to Bangur Group of Bhilwara. 5. The DCIT Central Circle, Ajmer issued notice u/s 153A to the appellant company on 21.02.2019 requiring the assessee company to file return under section 153A within 10 days of receipt of the said notice. The assessee company objected the initiation

M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 44AB was accompanied with the return. Hence, reopening of assessment proceeding is nothing but change of opinion which is outside the scope of provision of section 147. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions :- 5 Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur. DCIT vs. Aristocrat Luggage Ltd. 46 CCH 254 (Mumbai Trib.) PCIT

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)

147 of the Act is bad in law and needs to be quashed. 1.15 The Hon’ble ITAT, Surat in the case of Sandipkumar Parsottambhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 08 & 09/SRT/2019 vide its judgement dated 29.11.2021, in exactly identical circumstances, following their earlier decision in the cases of Nishant Kantilal Patel & Muktaben Nishantbhai Patel has quashed the reassessment

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

127 of the Act DCIT vs. M/s Royal Jewellers circulated vide CIT-I/ITO(Hqrs)/JPR/u/s127/2016-17/2328 dated 01-12- 2016. Notice under section 153A of the Act dated 06-03-2017 was issued and served upon the Assessee on 09-03-2017 requiring it to file a true and correct return of income as prescribed under Rule

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

127 of the Act DCIT vs. M/s Royal Jewellers circulated vide CIT-I/ITO(Hqrs)/JPR/u/s127/2016-17/2328 dated 01-12- 2016. Notice under section 153A of the Act dated 06-03-2017 was issued and served upon the Assessee on 09-03-2017 requiring it to file a true and correct return of income as prescribed under Rule

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

127 of the Act DCIT vs. M/s Royal Jewellers circulated vide CIT-I/ITO(Hqrs)/JPR/u/s127/2016-17/2328 dated 01-12- 2016. Notice under section 153A of the Act dated 06-03-2017 was issued and served upon the Assessee on 09-03-2017 requiring it to file a true and correct return of income as prescribed under Rule