DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

154 (Bom)held that “The basic postulate which underlines section 147 is the formation of the belief by the Assessing Officer that any income chargeable to tax has escaped ITA 437/JP/2017_ 7 DCIT Vs. Vimal Chand Surana (HUF) assessment for any assessment year. The Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that such is the case before he proceeds

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

section 147. It may, therefore, please be appreciated that since there is material already on record which has been made the basis of rectification u/s 154 (i.e. mistake “apparent on record”), there is nothing but a change of opinion. Opinion during issuance of notice u/s 148 and reassessment proceedings u/s 147: 18 ITA No. 359/JPR/2024 Shri Ashok Sharma vs. ACIT

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Issue notice u/s 148 for the A.Y. 2008-09 in which the sand transaction falls.” It is apparent that the reasons for issuing the notice u/s 154 as well as the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act are same to re-compute the deduction u/s 80IA after

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORTATION LTD., JAIPUR

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

147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Issue notice u/s 148 for the A.Y. 2008-09 in which the sand transaction falls.” It is apparent that the reasons for issuing the notice u/s 154 as well as the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act are same to re-compute the deduction u/s 80IA after

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

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

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

M/S G.B. IMPEX ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-3, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order passed U/s 147 of the Act. The assessee filed its return of income on 12/10/2010 declaring total income of Rs. 55,360/- on which scrutiny assessment U/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 25/3/2013. The ITA 624 & 800/JP/2018_ 14 M/s GB Impex Vs ITO Assessing Officer while passing the scrutiny assessment, rejected the books of account

M/S G.B. IMPEX ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment order passed U/s 147 of the Act. The assessee filed its return of income on 12/10/2010 declaring total income of Rs. 55,360/- on which scrutiny assessment U/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 25/3/2013. The ITA 624 & 800/JP/2018_ 14 M/s GB Impex Vs ITO Assessing Officer while passing the scrutiny assessment, rejected the books of account

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