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

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 for A.Y 2010-11 resulted in the Best Judgement Assessment of the assessee and an Order under Section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act was issued upon the assessee on 24.12.2017 [PB 1 - 6]. This Order resulted in a demand of Rs. 10,98,750/- on account of alleged unexplained Short-term Capital Gain

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

155 (Del),\nHeld:- Reassessment—Income escaping assessment—Disclosure of material facts—Obligation\nof assessee-Extent of that obligation—Held, it is the obligation of the assessee to disclose fully\nand truly the primary or material facts but it is not his obligation to indicate and state what legal\ninference can be drawn from such facts—In the present case, there

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

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

ACIT, NCR BUILDING, JAIPUR vs. HANS RAJ AGARWAL, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR JAIPUR

39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

155-156) 1. Thus, after considering all the replies and evidences on several occasions the Ld.AO was, please to accept the returned income of the assessee by passing the order u/s143(3) dated 11/12/2018(PB Pg No. 157-163). 2. Thus, Ld.AO by initiating the present reassessment proceedings are merely reviewing its own decision which is not permissible

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.

147 of I.T Act in- spite of the fact that no income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 by the reasons of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the said assessment year. 5.1 The ld. A/R further submitted that

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.

147 of I.T Act in- spite of the fact that no income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 by the reasons of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the said assessment year. 5.1 The ld. A/R further submitted that

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

155-164 [PBI] AO: 30.12.19 U/s 10AA by dividing expenses at proportionate basis 12. That surprisingly and shockingly, proceedings for A.Y. 2015-2016 were initiated against the assessee appellant by the ld. PCIT by invoking the powers u/s 263 of the Act and show cause notice dated 12.03.2021 was issued to the assessee appellant [PB-I, Pg. 1-14] proposing

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

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

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

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

section.\nAppellant prays reopening the assessment under the facts and\ncircumstances of the case and is not in accordance with law, thus\nconsequent order deserves to be quashed.\n2. On facts and circumstances of the matter the Id. CIT(A) has erred in\nconfirming the addition of Rs. 1,76,342/-made by Id.AO on the basis of\nan excel

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

155 taxmann.com 602 ( Madras ) 246(reasons to believe) 2. Approval not Before issuing notice u/s 148(a)(b), approval is required to 241 sought from be sought from specified authority in terms of section 151 of Pr. CCIT the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021. In terms of section 151(ii) of the Act , in case assessment is reopened

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 143(3) read with Section 153A(1)(b) in determining the total income of the Assessee of Rs. 14.5 crores against declared income of Rs. 3.44 crores. The ITAT deleted the additions on the ground that it was not based on any incriminating material found during the course of the search in respect of AYS under consideration

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

155 ITR 166 (SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions 11 ITA 1281/JP/2019 M/s Rajdhani Crafts Vs ACIT of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed

NARESH KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

147 read with Section 1-3 1. 144B, dated 30.09.2021, for the relevant previous year. Reasons recorded for reopening by the Jurisdictional 4-6 2. Assessing Officer, for the relevant previous year. Notice dated 30.09.2020 issued by NFAC, during the course 7-8 3. of reassessment proceedings, for the relevant previous year. Submission dated 06.10.2020, submitted by the assessee, before

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassess taking into consideration the other\nmaterial in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments.\nMeaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no\naddition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating\nmaterial found during the course of search under Section 132 or\nrequisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the\ncompleted/unabated assessments can be re-opened

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 20.07.2023 submitted vide point no. 14 that deduction of interest was claimed on borrowing from IDFC first bank and PNB housing and the statement of the loan was submitted. Thus, the claim of the assessee was supported by the evidence. It was the decision of the assessee not to challenge the disallowance even

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)

155 no amendment under this section shall be made after the expiry of four years [from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed] (8) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (7), where an application for amendment under this section is made by the assessee on or after

KAILASH CHAND,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassess issues other than the issues in respect of which proceedings were initiated but he was not so justified when the reasons for initiation of those proceedings ceased to survive. The observations of the Hon’ble High Court on pages 147 and 148 of in 336 ITR 136 are worth noting. 2.2.4 Also kindly refer CIT vs Mohmed Juned Dadani