MAHENDRA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

47,600/-. The\nld. AO has issued the notice u/s 148 on 28.09.2016. In response thereto the assesssee\nhas filed the letter on 17.10.2016 at the Dak Counter of the AO, in response to the notice\nunder section 148 dt. 28.09.2016 and admittedly submitted that the return of income filed\nunder section 139 of the Act may be treated

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

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 131 on the address of above companies requesting furnishing of books of accounts, details of bank accounts, copies of Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur ITR and other documents, but the same could not be served due to non-existence of the companies on their respective given addresses. From the Database of the department, it is gathered that

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

v IAC (1995) 212 ITR 185 (Guj.) 1.10. It reiterated that the sole basis, emerging out of the reasons recorded, of reopening the case of the assessee was the incriminating documents found during the course of search on the premises of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta. 1.11. Reassessment pursuant to material found in search can be done through recourse to section

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

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

v. Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan\nBahadur (1974) 97 ITR 239held:\n“The High Court was right in holding that the Income Tax officer had no valid reasons to\nbelieve that the respondent had omitted or failed to disclose fully and truly all material\nfacts and consequently had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessments for the four years in\nquestion

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

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

v. ACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO and FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing assessment or reassessment order and it is only FAO which could issue notice under section

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

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

47,549/- under chapter VIA. A notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued\r\nto the assessee on 06.10.2023. Ld. AO in the assessment proceeding\r\nnoted that assessee claimed deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(iv) and u/s 80P(2)(d)\r\nof the Act. The assessee's claim of deduction under chapter VIA was not\r\nallowable

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued........” Hence, the there was relevant and cogent material before the Ld. A.O before re- opening the assessement. The contention of the appellant in this regard is rejected. In view

DESH RAJ JAKHAR,GORDHANPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NEEM KA THANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

147 the appellant failed to explain the source for the cash deposits and instead "surrendered" Rs. 10,00,000 4 SHRI DESH RAJ JAKHAR VS ITO, WARD NEEM KA THANA, SIKAR as taxable income out of the cash deposits made. The AO completed the assessment, treating the balance cash deposited (Rs.49,09,500) as unexplained investment u/s 69 and deeming

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

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

u/s 139(1) of the Act. The total income of the trust (before\nallowing exemption under sections 11 and 12) exceeds the maximum amounts\nwhich is not chargeable to tax, it is required to file its return in Form ITR-7,\nbefore the date specified in section 139. However, no return of income was\nfiled. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 59/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 7/58, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Ward 4(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Advpa 6150 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Pravin Kr. Saraswat (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 27/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Learned C.I.T. (A) Has Erred For Not Considering The Issue For Validity Of Issue Notice U/S 148 Of I.T. Act, 1961, While There Was No Escapement Of Income On Part Of Assessee. The Initiation Of Proceedings Was Only On Behest Of I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Who Has Intimated To A.O. For Advancement Of Loan Rs.53,95,000/- Given By Assessee To Pooja Agarwal, While Concern A.O. Has Accepted Said Loan In Her Hands After Detailed Examination. Hence Initiation Of 2

u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act deserves to be quashed. The A.O. had no jurisdiction to travel beyond the reasons for reopening the assessment. This contention of assessee is based on well settled law and a few judgments in support, including binding judgments of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court, are as under

SHRI PRAKASH CHAND KOTHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act. 40. In the instant case, the fact that the Assessing officer has not invoked the provisions of section 153C, it shows that there was no satisfaction which has been recorded by the Assessing officer having jurisdiction over Ramesh Maniar Group that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act. 40. In the instant case, the fact that the Assessing officer has not invoked the provisions of section 153C, it shows that there was no satisfaction which has been recorded by the Assessing officer having jurisdiction over Ramesh Maniar Group that

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

u/s 139(1) of the Act. The total income of the trust (before\nallowing exemption under sections 11 and 12) exceeds the maximum amounts\nwhich is not chargeable to tax, it is required to file its return in Form ITR-7,\nbefore the date specified in section 139. However, no return of income was\nfiled. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction

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

2, reasons for belief of escapement of income is not as per law considering following facts:  Though reference about receipt of information from investigation wing has been given, no reference has been provided about the nature of information, nature of investigation carried on by the investigation wing and the basis of the allegation, which leads to conclusion that legal transaction

VINITA BAJORIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

47 containing the Reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment u/s 147 (Annexure-H) 13. Copy of Submission dated 16.06.2022 (Annexure-I) 48 to 68 14. Copy of Material supplied along-with notice u/s 148A(b) 69 dated 01.06.2022 (Annexure-J) 15. Copy of Order u/s 148A(d) (Annexure-K) 70 to 98 16. Copy of New Notice u/s

SONU AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(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 order dated 29.05.2023 passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B along with all consequential additions be quashed. 3. Any other relief deemed fit in the interest of justice may please be granted.” The ld. AR further filed the Paper Book in support of his case as under :- PAPER BOOK S.No. Particular Page No. From To 1. Written Submission