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

147\n76\n76\n6\nOrder u/s 143(3) dated 30.07.2016\n77\n84\n7\nSubmission by assessee dated 28.06.2016 to the respondent during\n85\n86\nassessment proceedings u/s 143(3)\n8\nNote Sheet of assessment proceedings u/s 143(3)\n9\nNotice u/s 154 dated 21.11.2017 for rectification of mistake apparent on\nrecord in order u/s 143(3) dated

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)

ii) (prior to substitution by Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1-6-2016, now Section 153 (6) (i) expl.2) no doubt are relevant to Section 150 but as held by Gujrat High Court in case of CIT v. G. Viswanatham. (1988) 172 ITR 401, 408 (AP) Explanations 2 and 3, are relevant also to section 150, but their purpose is merely

SHRI GOVIND NARAIN JOHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Although The Second Round Of Assessment Was Completed At The Directions Of Hon’Ble Itat.

147/- out of interest and bank charges without considering the submissions made and evidences adduced before him, thus disallowance so made needs to deleted. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance made ld. AO of Rs. 22,47,127/- on account of interest paid on loan taken

M/S. RAJDHANI CRAFTS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4 JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) of section 143. 18. On a consideration of the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Act, we are in agreement with the reasoning and the conclusion reached by the High Court.” 12 ITA 1281/JP/2019 M/s Rajdhani Crafts Vs ACIT The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the notice under section 143(2) is a mandatory condition

SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, 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. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

u/s 143(2), the same is applicable to assessments completed under Act, irrespective of the fact under which section assessment is to be completed as legislature has provided for issuance of such notice before completion of assessment under whatever section it may be. CIT v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All) "10. Section 292BB

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

section 147 validly. 7.2. There is no need to discuss the merits of the AO'S additions as the reassessment has been considered as void and illegal. In any case, the issue brought up by the AO in the reassessment were dealt with by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Tribunal in the appellant case for the assessment year 2015-16. Based

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 69C of the IT Act is upheld and the ground no. 3 of the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Ground No. 5 9. This ground of appeal states that the assessee craves right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal. No such option has been exercised during the appellate proceedings and this ground of appeal

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 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2015-16, on the grounds of jurisdictional defects and fundamental procedural irregularities in the initiation and conduct of the reassessment proceedings. 2. Alternatively, without prejudice to the above, direct the Assessing Officer to reclassify the subsidy received by the assessee as a capital receipt, thereby

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment u/s 147 of the Act. Therefore, it becomes mandatory\nupon the Revenue to ensure the service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act even in the\nassessment framed under section 147 of the Act. In support of this, we rely on the\nfollowing judgements:\n> Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Lally Jacob

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

143 & 147/148. 27. Section 153A and 153C starts with non-obstante clause. The procedure for assessment/reassessment in Section 153A, 153C in cases of search or requisition has an overriding effect to the regular provisions for assessment or reassessment under Sections 139,147,148,149,151 & 153. " In view of the above discussion, the assessment completed u/s 144 deserves

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.03.2013. Therefore, after 31/03/2015 the reassessment proceeding in this case can be taken only if income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by the reason of failure on the part of the assessee (i) to make the return u/s 139/142(1)/148 or (ii) to disclose

KRISHNA BUILD HOME PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HOLDING CHARGE OF ITO WARD 4(2)), JAIPUR

Bench: The Learned Ao, The Reassessment Proceeding Is Illegal, Bad In Law, Without Jurisdiction & Is Based On Wrong Facts & On Change Of Opinion & In Gross Violation Of Proviso To S. 147 Of The It Act, Which Says No Action Can Be Taken M/S. Krishna Build Home Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur.

143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.03.2013. Therefore, after 31/03/2015 the reassessment proceeding in this case can be taken only if income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by the reason of failure on the part of the assessee (i) to make the return u/s 139/142(1)/148 or (ii) to disclose

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 147\nr.w.s 148?\nGround No. 1\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in\nquashing the reopening and reassessment under Section 147 of the Act ignoring that\nthe case was reopened as per clause (c) of Explanation 2 to Section 147 and with the\n27\nITA No. 872 & others/JP/2024\nKedia Builders

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 147\nr.w.s 148?\n\nGround No. 1\n\nWhether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in\nquashing the reopening and reassessment under Section 147 of the Act ignoring that\nthe case was reopened as per clause (c) of Explanation 2 to Section 147 and with the\n\n27\nITA

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

u/s 143(3) of the Act. It\nhas been settled by various courts that when no addition is made in respect to the reason\nfor which the satisfaction is reached in the reasons recorded before issue of notice u/s 148\nof the Act, then the Ld. AO had no jurisdiction to make any other addition i.e. to go beyond\nthe

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, the assessee cannot be fastened with any liability for the same. Therefore, Explanation (1) Section 147 does not get attracted to this case. In this case, we find that the finding of the Tribunal is that the Proviso to Section 147 of the Income Tax Act does not get attracted since

SONU AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147 r.w.s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act, 1961 by making addition of Rs. 81,84,838/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 on account of unexplained money, vide his order dated 29.05.2023. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before