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

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

u/s 148 of the Act on\n28/03/2019 merely as a process of review, the reassessment is not legally invalid. The\nappellant relied on various judicial decisions that the AO cannot reopen concluded\nassessment merely to re-examine any transaction for non-application of his mind on the\nmaterials already with him.\n\n5.13 The Hon’ble Supreme Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction.” 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee appellant is a charitable trust running a veterinary college in the name of Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine. It is registered U/s 12AA vide order no. 29/8/2003-04/723 dated 27.06.2003. For the year under consideration, the assessee trust filed its return of income

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

147(b) of the Act, as held in\nCIT v. A.L.A. Firm [(1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC)].\nThe AO can validly reopen an assessment based on such information if it reveals\nescapement of income.\n2.5 Once objection is decided, the procedure laid down in landmark judgement of\nApex Court in GKN Drive Shaft is applicable. There is no procedural lapse

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

189/[2017] 84 taxmann.com 155/249Taxman 599 (Guj.), has held\nas under:\n\n40\nITA No. 360/JPR/2025 & CO No. 19/JPR/2025\nBharat Spun Pipe and Construction Co., Jaipur.\n\n"7. It is this judgment the assessee has challenged in the present appeal.\nFrom the material on record, it can be seen that the sum of Rs.74 lakhs was\noffered

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

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

reassessment order.”\nAccordingly, the proceedings-initiated u/s 263 deserves to be quashed.\n4. Alternatively, and without prejudice to above our submissions on\nmerits are as under:\nOn the issues raised by the Ld. CIT in the SCN, u/s 263 of the Act, on\nthe remaining four issues narrated at page 29 of the impugned order, the\nfollowing submissions were made

JAI DEEP SINGH,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147, he is free to record the reasons for the belief and proceed to make the reassessment. Thus, the appellant’s arguments being devoid of merits are rejected and keeping in view the provisions of section 292B of the Act and various judicial pronouncements discussed (supra), the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is upheld. 4.3.6 Further

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)

189 ITD 450 (Mum.) (Trib.) Where reasons communicated to assessee for reopening assessment were incomplete and nowhere in reasons recorded failure on part of assessee to furnish full and true information necessary for purpose of assessment was mentioned, entire reassessment proceedings being void ab initio were to be set aside. The Ld. CIT(A) has not decided this legal contention

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

Bench: Him Against The Order Dated 05.12.2019 Passed Under Section 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By Acit, Circle-07, Jaipur.

147 was not satisfied in the instant case and consequent reassessment proceedings deserve to be set-aside…” 15 Paris Elysees India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 13. Even in the reasons recorded ld. AO has confused himself with the revisionary power provide u/s 263 vis-à-vis power to re-assess the case of the assessee u/s

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

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

SDC CONSTRUCTION,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 1(3), JIAPUR

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

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

reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee under Section 147. Our Submission We submit that reopening u/s 148 of the act is bad in law as no material has been provided for reopening as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs Ashish Agarwal as well as the Ld AO has not properly followed the procedure prescribed

CREATIVE REALMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section\n68, with respect to the share application monies received by an\nassessee.\n9.6 It would thus appear that the appellant is not really right in\napproaching on the basis as if the onus is on the Assessing Officer to\nprove the alleged money laundering racket an onus that may perhaps\nbe relevant only when the money laundering racket

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)

section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of "mere change of opinion", which cannot be per se reason to reopen. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess. The Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to reassess

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 28. The correctness of the claim of the Assessee for the purpose of Section 14A read with Rule

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

M/S ASHOKA PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed as per the\nterms indicated hereinabove

189 ITD 118\n(Jaipur - Trib.)\nDr. Ajit Gupta vs. ACIT (2016) 383 ITR 361 (Del. – HC)\nBhaijee Commodities (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2023) 202 ITD\n757 (Del. – Trib.)\nSmt. Anshita Vimal Jain vs. ITO (2023) 199 ITD 168\n(Surat - Trib.)\nFuture Tech IT Systems (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2021) 190 ITD\n52 (Chd. – Trib.)\n\n(M/s. Ashoka

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF SUCH AMOUNT- NOT VALID INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, S. 147-VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF INCOME SCHEME, 1997-FINANCE ACT, 1997, SS. 68, 78” Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs Manju Osatwal in Appeal No. ITAT/96/2021 has held as under: “In the case at hand, the tax paid by the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also on the spot verification/inspection made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition of the land. In this connection it is submitted that the above said finding of the ld. AO was based on the enquiries made from the Tehsildar, Sanganer vide his letter dated 14.11.2019 and 15.11.2019 and also on the spot verification/inspection made