ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

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

reassessment order u/s 143(3) r/w 147, has started with the total income as assessed after giving effect to the order of the CIT (A) u/s 250 dt. 09.04.2019 at Rs. 75,95,250/-. Therefore, the ld. AO cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath now. 3. It is submitted that S. 44AB of the Act has been

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that as the first proviso provides for assessment or reassessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within the six assessment years, is merely reading the said provision in isolation and not in the context

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that as the first proviso provides for assessment or reassessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within the six assessment years, is merely reading the said provision in isolation and not in the context

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that as the first proviso provides for assessment or reassessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within the six assessment years, is merely reading the said provision in isolation and not in the context

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that as the first proviso provides for assessment or reassessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within the six assessment years, is merely reading the said provision in isolation and not in the context

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that as the first proviso provides for assessment or reassessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within the six assessment years, is merely reading the said provision in isolation and not in the context

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that as the first proviso provides for assessment or reassessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within the six assessment years, is merely reading the said provision in isolation and not in the context

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that as the first proviso provides for assessment or reassessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within the six assessment years, is merely reading the said provision in isolation and not in the context

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that as the first proviso provides for assessment or reassessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within the six assessment years, is merely reading the said provision in isolation and not in the context

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that as the first proviso provides for assessment or reassessment of the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within the six assessment years, is merely reading the said provision in isolation and not in the context

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

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

POOJASHISH INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 143(2) has expired on 30.09.2011. Undisputedly, the assessment for the impugned assessment year was 7 Poojashish Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Kota Vs.The DCIT, Kota not pending on the date of search on 02.07.2015 and not got abated by virtue of search under section 132 on the date of search. It is a settled proposition of law that the assessment

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act in case of the assessee. The requirement for making the addition under section 153A in the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act in case of the assessee. The requirement for making the addition under section 153A in the assessment

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act in case of the assessee. The requirement for making the addition under section 153A in the assessment

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act in case of the assessee. The requirement for making the addition under section 153A in the assessment

SHRI BANNA LAL JAT,BHILWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, theses appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

reassessment under section 147 of the Act has abated, needless to state that the scope and ambit of the assessment would include any order which the Assessing Officer could have passed under section 147 of the Act as well as under section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating