RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

171/-\nas unexplained investment under section 69 of the IT Act and completed the\nassessment under section 147 r.w.s.144 vide his order dated 28.03.2022 for the\nyear under consideration. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred\nappeal before the ld. CIT (A), who after considering the contentions of the assessee\nas well as the material available

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment process invalid in law. The AO's\naction in initiating proceedings u/s 147 is based on conjecture and suspicion, and falls\nfoul of the binding legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various\nHigh Courts.\nIn light of the above legal and factual position, it is respectfully submitted that the\nreassessment proceedings-initiated u/s 147

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment process invalid in law. The AO's\naction in initiating proceedings u/s 147 is based on conjecture and suspicion, and falls\nfoul of the binding legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various\nHigh Courts.\nIn light of the above legal and factual position, it is respectfully submitted that the\nreassessment proceedings-initiated u/s 147

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

171 taxmann.com 846 (Bombay), wherein under identical facts\nand circumstances hon'ble court has held as under: (headnote reproduced)\nSection 153C, read with sections 147, 148 and 153A, of the Income-tax Act,\n1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment of any other person (Unsecured loan)\n Assessment year 2012-13 - A search and seizure operation was conducted at\npremises

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

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

reassessment was completed vide order dated\n26.03.2015 by making a further disallowance of Rs.1,38,95,995/- u/s\n40(a)(ia) of the Act (and the total reassessed income of Rs.\n5,97,80,77,790/-). However, this was followed by a notice u/s 263 with\nreference to the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. 147 of the\nAct

M/S HANUMAN TUBE WELL CO.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment restricting allowance of deduction under section 40(b) by excluding interest earned on bank deposits from book profits for M/S. HANUMAN TUBEWELL COMPANY VS DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR respective assessment years Assessee challenged validity of reopening of assessments for all three years - Whether, in view of decision of Supreme Court in Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers

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

u/s 148 by the Pr. CIT, only the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO are available. Considering this it can be said that report of investigation wing was not considered by the Range head while moving forward reasons to the Pr. CIT and by Pr. CIT while granting permission of issuance of reason.  With reference to the allegation of fictious

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)

section 153A of the Act is annulled in appeal or any other proceeding. 16. Section 153A bears the heading "Assessment in case of search or requisition". It is "well settled as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that the heading or the Section Can be regarded as a key to the interpretation of the operative portion

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)

section 153A of the Act is annulled in appeal or any other proceeding. 16. Section 153A bears the heading "Assessment in case of search or requisition". It is "well settled as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that the heading or the Section Can be regarded as a key to the interpretation of the operative portion

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)

section 153A of the Act is annulled in appeal or any other proceeding. 16. Section 153A bears the heading "Assessment in case of search or requisition". It is "well settled as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that the heading or the Section Can be regarded as a key to the interpretation of the operative portion

KAILASH CHAND YADAV,100, KALU BABA KI DHANI, SHEOSHINGHPUR, AKODA, PHULERA-303338 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - 1(2), JAIPUR

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

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

reassessed. To confer jurisdiction under section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied firstly, the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax had escaped assessment, and secondly, he must also have reason to believe that such escapement had occurred by reason 5 Kailash Chand Yadav vs. ITO of either

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

u/s 143(3) of Prem\nKunj Commosales P Ltd for AY 2014-15 dated\n07.12.2016\n146-\n152\n25. Copy of assessment order u/s 143(3) of\nPanchkoti Wholeseller P Ltd for AY 2014-15 dated\n13.12.2016\n153-\n159\n26. Copy of assessment order u/s 143(3) of Night\nBird Barter P Ltd for AY 2014-15 dated\n21.11.2016\n160-\n165

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,SETU BHAWAN, JHALANA DOONGRI, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment order, the said act of the AO is in clear violation of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshaft India and the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of K.C Mercantile Ltd. 9 M/s Rajasthan State Road Development & Construction Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT PCIT Vs. Tupperware India

ANIL KUMAR MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

147 is void ab initio because the jurisdictional notice u/s 148 was never validly served. The initial notice was returned unserved, and later service by affixture occurred when the appellant was abroad, and he is non resident as conclusively shown by passport records (PB No. 30 to 38). Service of notice is mandatory for jurisdiction and not a procedural irregularity

BALVEER SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(3) JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

171\n4.\nBalveer Singh Real\nEstate\n1,27,74,000\n10,21,920\n6,55,306\n3,66,614\nTotal\n11,08,02,867\n88,64,288\n54,71,144\n33,93,084\n3.4 Further the Ld. AO noted that the assessee has sold an immoveable\nproperty for a sales consideration of Rs. Rs. 11,04,606/-. On perusal

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.”

u/s. 133(6) of the Act. Upon verifying the entries in the name of assessee appearing in the bank statement filed by M/s HBL Securities Ltd., totaling to Rs. 3,05,50,000/- [ credit and debit 16882000+13668000] same were found to have remained unexplained. At last she also noted that the assessee was director in some of the companies

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

171 taxmann.com 572 (Raipur - Trib.) Balbir Singh v. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income-tax\nSection 2(14), read with section 143(2), of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nCapital\ngains - Capital asset(Agricultural land) – Assessment year 2012-13 – Assessee\nfiled its return of income in response to notice issued under section 148\nAssessing Officer completed reassessment proceedings undersection 143(3)\nread

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

171 taxmann.com 572 (Raipur - Trib.) Balbir Singh v. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income-tax\nSection 2(14), read with section 143(2), of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nCapital\ngains - Capital asset(Agricultural land) – Assessment year 2012-13 – Assessee\nfiled its return of income in response to notice issued under section 148\nAssessing Officer completed reassessment proceedings undersection 143(3)\nread