RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 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 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

147 deserves to be Quashed. 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below and pleaded that the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be sustained. 7. The Bench have heard both the sides on this issue and perused the material available on the record. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

reassessment under Sections 139,147,148,149,151 & 153. " In view of the above discussion, the assessment completed u/s 144 deserves to be quashed. The order of the Learned CIT(A) also deserved to be quashed on this ground. Additional Ground No.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned

PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

158 ITR 965 (CHD)(TRIB)\n“Where Assessing Officer processed under section 143(1) returns of income filed\nby assessee for assessment years 2001-02 to 2003-04 and subsequently he\nreopened said assessments on sole basis that assessee had not filed returns for\nyears preceding to assessment year 2004-05 and, therefore, its income having\nescaped assessment, reopening

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

158 BC, the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 are applicable and no assessment could be made without issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. However, it is contended by Sri Shekhar, learned counsel for the department that in view of the expression "So far as may be" in Section

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

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

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

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

147 and other related sections. Thus, the assessment u/s 153A are not de novo assessments since the purpose of making the reassessments under section 153A is subject to tax, hitherto undisclosed income unearthed during the course of the search. It is for this reason that the second Shri Banna Lal Jat vs. ACIT proviso to section 153A(1) provides only

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

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

147 and other related sections. Thus, the assessment u/s 153A are not de novo assessments since the purpose of making the reassessments under section 153A is subject to tax, hitherto undisclosed income unearthed during the course of the search. It is for this reason that the second Shri Banna Lal Jat vs. ACIT proviso to section 153A(1) provides only

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

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

147 and other related sections. Thus, the assessment u/s 153A are not de novo assessments since the purpose of making the reassessments under section 153A is subject to tax, hitherto undisclosed income unearthed during the course of the search. It is for this reason that the second Shri Banna Lal Jat vs. ACIT proviso to section 153A(1) provides only

M/S. KAIZEN ORGANICS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing.

u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of ld. AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing entire reassessment proceedings, being void and illegal.” Since the additional ground raised by the assessee is legal in nature and goes to the root of the matter, therefore

APOORVA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

158-BC was issued- For block period, returns were filed that were processed u/s. 143 (1)- However, notice u/s. 148 was issued by AO, on basis of certain reasons recorded-Assessee objected to same before AO, that was rejected and assessment was completed u/ss. 143(3) and CO No.57/Del/2012 147- CIT(A) found that reason recorded by Joint Commissioner

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

reassessment proceedings initiated by notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were not legally transferred by the Chief Commissioner/Director General, Kolkata after recording and communicating the reasons and providing opportunity to the appellant as prescribed u/s 127(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section\n153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of\naccount, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the\n31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall-\n(a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish

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

MRS. RENU SEHGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

158 BC of the act, the same was also applied in respect of assessment u/s 153A by Delhi High Court in case of Best Infrastructure (84 Taxmann.com 287) when it was held thus:- 38. Fifthly, statements recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

158/- during FY 2012-3 and thereon till 31.3.2016. The additions to Plant & Machinery in Mahapura, Jaipur (DTA Unit) were to the tune of Rs 6.47 Crore apart from the Machinery purchased from PinkcityColourstones Pvt. Ltd. for domestic Non deduction claiming unit. That no Plant & Machinery was purchased by Sitapura SEZ Unit-I from PinkcityColourstones Pvt. Ltd. 1.8. That till

M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

147 and other related sections. Thus, the assessment u/s 153A are not denovo assessments since the purpose of making the reassessments under section 153A is to subject to tax, hitherto undisclosed income unearthed during the course of the search. It is for this reason that the second proviso to section 153A(1) provides only for the abatement of the pending

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

147 and other related sections. Thus, the assessment u/s 153A are not denovo assessments since the purpose of making the reassessments under section 153A is to subject to tax, hitherto undisclosed income unearthed during the course of the search. It is for this reason that the second proviso to section 153A(1) provides only for the abatement of the pending