SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

Reassessment proceedings and notice being bad in law were quashed—Assessee’s appeal allowed. And the ld. CIT(A) kept mum on this very legal plea, despite deciding the case on legal issue also, which shows his contradictory approach. Therefore the notice, reasons recorded, assessment all are the illegal bad void ab-initio and barred by limitation and liable

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 of the Act inter-alia\npostulates that the information received from investigation wing, emanating from the\nsearch records would not per se empower the Assessing Officer to exercise the power of\nreassessment. Such information with regard to escapement of income which comes into\npossession of an Assessing Officer has to be processed and, on the basis, thereof an\nopinion

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

u/s 12A of\nthe IT Act vide registration certificate No. 8/1993-94/2609dt. 10.08.1994 (PB 37).\nSince the issues challenged by way of these appeals are identical in nature in all the\nyears and for sake of convenience we are submitting common submission. That year\nwise detail of issue under challenge and addition made by the ld. Assessing officer &\nCIT

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

194 Income—Cash\ncredit-Genuineness—CIT(A) not only found that the identity of each of the shareholders stood\nestablished, but also examined the fact that each of them were income-tax assessees and had\ndisclosed the share application money in their accounts which were duly reflected in their IT\nreturns as well as in their balance sheets—Tribunal

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.

194-199/Vol-II) x) 2019 (5) TMI 675 - ITAT PUNE M/S. Kolte Patil Developers Limited Versus DCIT (Copy at PB Page No. 200-208/Vol-II) i) The section 23(1)(a) stipulates that 23(1)(a):- The sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or Therefore, the ALV should be estimated considering

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.

194-199/Vol-II) x) 2019 (5) TMI 675 - ITAT PUNE M/S. Kolte Patil Developers Limited Versus DCIT (Copy at PB Page No. 200-208/Vol-II) i) The section 23(1)(a) stipulates that 23(1)(a):- The sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year; or Therefore, the ALV should be estimated considering

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

147 was passed on 26 03-2022. Thus by carefully reading the above chronological events, it is seen that the order for transfer of jurisdiction from Kolkata to ACIT, central Circle, Ajmer (Rajsthan) was duly passed by the PCIT-5, Kolkata and the current AO was having jurisdiction on the date of passing the reassessment order. Thus the grounds

GOYAL VEGOILS LIMITED ,KASAR ,KOTA vs. DCIT , CIRCLE -2, KOTA

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

147 of the Act is bad in law and needs to be quashed. 1.15 The Hon’ble ITAT, Surat in the case of Sandipkumar Parsottambhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 08 & 09/SRT/2019 vide its judgement dated 29.11.2021, in exactly identical circumstances, following their earlier decision in the cases of Nishant Kantilal Patel & Muktaben Nishantbhai Patel has quashed the reassessment

SPECTRUM FOODS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is void ab-initio deserves to be quashed.” 3.1.1 Despite the assesse had not made any submission before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) in the interest of justice, decided this ground on merit and the same is reproduced as given below: “4.2.1. While non-compliance may be reason

MAYA KUMARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment or re-computation under section\n147. Unless, the notice was served on the proper person in the manner prescribed under\nsection 282, the service was insufficient and AO did not have jurisdiction to re-assess the\nescaped income. Thus, the service of notice under section 148 was no service in the eye\nof law and all subsequent proceedings including

MO. SHARIPH KURESHI,SIKAR vs. ITO WARD-4 SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Reassessment—Scope—Addition in respect of items other than the one on which notice in given—Income alleged to have escaped assessment in reasons recorded not having been actually found to 8 Mo. Shariph Kureshi, Sikar. 1.5 Recently the Honble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Shri Shambhu Dayal Saraf v/s IT in ITA No. 558/Jp/2013 dt02.07.2018

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

reassessment proceeding on the basis of wrong or incorrect\nreason and wrong material are illegal and liable to be quashed.\n2. No income escaped: further it is submitted that the notice u/s 148\ncan be issued only when there is any escape of income because S.\n147 provides that If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that an\nincome

VIJIT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Reassessment proceedings and notice being bad in law\nwere quashed-Assessee's appeal allowed.\nAlso refer a recent judgment of this Honble ITAT in the case of Sh. Anshuman\nSingh v/s ACIT Circle-1 Jaipur in ITA No.733 & 739/JP/2023 dt.10.04.2024.\nTherefore the notice, reasons recorded, assessment all are the illegal bad void\nab-initio and barred by limitation and liable

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

u/s 147/148 of the\nI.T. Act, 1961\nSr.\nNo.\nName of the case\n1.\n[1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIARaymondWoollen Mills Ltd.v.\nIncome-tax Officer\n2.\n[2023] 148 taxmann.com 446 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Saif II Mauritius Company\nLtd.v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax\n3.\n[1999] 103 TAXMAN 562 (PAT.)HIGH COURT

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

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

DIPTI GARG,TONK vs. ITO WD, TONK

147 of the Act by ITO,\nWd-TONK dated 25.12.2018.\n2. Though the assessee has raised as many as five grounds of\nappeal but the sole grievance is against the addition of Rs.38,25,073/-\nmade u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act.\n3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual earning\nincome from salary and tuition

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

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

147 and 148, have been removed by the non-obstante clause with which sub-s. (1) of s. 153A opens. The time-limit within which the notice under s. 148 can be issued, as provided in s. 149 has also been made inapplicable by the non-obstante clause. Sec. 151 which requires sanction to be obtained