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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MAYA KUMARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 rws 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 04.12.2019 as well\nas the notice u/s 148 and action or proceedings u/s 147/148 are illegal, bad in law, barred\nby limitation, without jurisdiction, without approval/satisfaction from the proper or\ncompetent authority, against the principle of natural justice and various other reasons or\nand further contrary to the real facts

BRIJ BIHARI AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 , JAIPUR

section 147/148 of the Act are\nnot applicable in such cases. No contrary decision has been brought to\nour notice. Accordingly, we hold that initiation of proceedings u/s\n147/148 by the AO to reassess the income is illegal being without\njurisdiction and consequently the reassessment order passed u/s 147\nr.w.s. 143(3) is also illegal and void abinitio

KAILASH CHAND YADAV,100, KALU BABA KI DHANI, SHEOSHINGHPUR, AKODA, PHULERA-303338 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - 1(2), JAIPUR

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

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

u/s 148 not served properly – It is submitted that since the delivery of the notice of reassessment could not be made to the asseessee, by virtue of the further proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 127, the communication had to be delivered at the address as available with the banking company however, no such steps were taken, therefore, service

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

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year