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

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 131 on the address of above companies requesting furnishing of books of accounts, details of bank accounts, copies of Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur ITR and other documents, but the same could not be served due to non-existence of the companies on their respective given addresses. From the Database of the department, it is gathered that

ADITYA CEMENT,BEHROR vs. ITO, BEHROR

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

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

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 could have been undertaken as provided by Act. The A.O. chose it as a mistake apparent u/s 154 from the record which is not the applicable provision of law to facts looking from any angle, the mistake in order to be rectifiable should be a self-evident and mistake which is tried to be corrected

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

3) Therefore, it is very much clear that the appeal of the assessee was in totality including the ground relating to rectification not being amenable to sec.154. Now the department has filed this appeal challenging the quashing of proceedings u/s 154 of the Act but only on the ground relating to the providing of reasonable opportunity of being heard

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 69 and therefore, the burden lies on the Assessing officer to prove that the investment by way of cash loans has infact taken place and the amount so invested belongs to the assessee and the burden is on the Revenue to first prove the said allegations by leading positive evidence. In this regard, our reference was drawn

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 69 and therefore, the burden lies on the Assessing officer to prove that the investment by way of cash loans has infact taken place and the amount so invested belongs to the assessee and the burden is on the Revenue to first prove the said allegations by leading positive evidence. In this regard, our reference was drawn

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

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)

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. On these facts it was held that during the continuation of the proceedings u/s 154

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

u/s 148 he accepts the contention of the assessee and holds that the income for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some other income. And if he intends to do so a fresh notice

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)

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. On these facts it was held that during the continuation of the proceedings u/s 154

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

154 of the Act. On 24.12.2019. 3 Ajay Bakliwal vs. ACIT 2.2 As there was difference of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- between ITR filed under section 153A and 139 of the IT. Act, 1961, the ld. AO considered the additional income so disclosed liable for penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under reporting of income and thereby

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

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

3 to s.147. Therefore, for the\npurpose of limitation under s.263(2), if the jurisdiction under s.263 is\ninvoked on an issue which was not subject-matter of reassessment, then\nthe limitation would reckon from the original assessment order and not\nfrom the reassessment order.”\nAccordingly, the proceedings-initiated u/s 263 deserves to be quashed.\n4. Alternatively, and without prejudice

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 after

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 contained in Sec. 234A

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 the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

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

3 of the said notification provides that:\n\n\"For the purpose of this Scheme,-\n\n(a)\nassessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147 of the Act,\n\n(b)\nissuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, shall be through\nautomated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by\nthe Board as referred to in section

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 the power of the CIT and recommend a revision.\nNo overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the\nrevision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

SUSHILA DEVI JANGID,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 374/JP/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2010-11 Smt. Sushila Devi Jangid 65, Koshaliya Vihar Hajyawala,Muhana Mandi Ke Pass, Sanganer, Jaipur 302 029 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 7(2) Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AFMPJ 2091 P निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Utkarsh Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by :Shri Gautam Sing

3. It may please be further noted that the Reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act for relevant A.Y still reflect as on-going proceedings under ‘For your action’ list on ‘e-proceedings’ tab on the Income Tax profile of the assessee. Also, there is no Order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 dated 24.12.2017 available under ‘For your information’ list

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)

147, 148 and 151 of the Act and determine the total income of the assessee. 21. The argument raised by the counsel for the appellant to the effect that once a notice under Section 1534 of the Act is issued, the assessments for six years are at large both for the AD and assessee has no warrant in law. 22.In