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)

200 ITR 231 (sic), held that when all the relevant facts were before the court and the law is clear on the subject, it is the duty of the High Court to interfere. That was also a case where the proceedings were sought to be initiated against the assessee under section 147 of the Act. 20. In the case

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings. 30. In this regard, we refer to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. In the reasons so recorded, the Assessing Officer refers to the information received from the office of DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur pursuant to search and seizure action carried out in case of Ramesh Manihar

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings. 30. In this regard, we refer to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer before issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. In the reasons so recorded, the Assessing Officer refers to the information received from the office of DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur pursuant to search and seizure action carried out in case of Ramesh Manihar

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)

section 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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

reassessment was completed on 12.12.2018 whereby the AO has made addition under section 68 of the IT Act of Rs. 12,74,04,995/- along with disallowance of commission payment and freight payment total amounting to Rs. 12,83,51,717/-. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) both on merits of the addition

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.

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 the reasonably expected let out value from year to year. It cannot be based on rent received for short period. j) Construction

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.

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 the reasonably expected let out value from year to year. It cannot be based on rent received for short period. j) Construction

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

3, 1970. To the facts of the case, section 147(b) of the Act applies. The two relevant provisions are in sections 148 and 149 of the Act which provide: '148. (1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Income-tax Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice containing all or any of the requirements

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

200/- (APB 1-3). The assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/ 147 of the Act\nat the total income of Rs.1,48,63,860/-, wherein addition of Rs.1,37,83,051/- was\nmade u/s 68 of the Act by holding the long term capital gain (LTCG, in short) of Rs.\n1,37,83,051/- declared by assessee on account

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s\n143(3) r.w.s.147 –Re-assessment proceedings were initiated on basis of information received\nfrom Directorate of Income-tax (Investigation) without recording AO'S own satisfaction and\ninformation was accepted in mechanical manner—After reopening of assessment u/s 147, AO\nmade addition of Rs.40 lakhs received by assessee from various corporate entities-Addition\nwas made by AO on account

DCIT, CC-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S. DANGAYACH HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

reassessment proceedings. The Assessing officer has referred to and compared the aforesaid data with data found in other pen drives as well as statements of Ramesh Chand Maheshwari recorded u/s 132(4) during the course of search and post search proceedings u/s 131 of the Act given that the said data has been found in pen drives from the premises

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassessment proceedings.\nReassessment proceedings as also subsequent recovery of tax are quashed and\nset aside.\nMrs. ShubhashriPanickerVs. CIT (2018) 166 DTR 1 (Raj.) (HC)\nNotice under sec. 148 having been sent to an address where the assessee was\nnot residing, presumption of service cannot be drawn.\nCIT Vs. ITC Hotels (2015) 231 Taxman 57 (Kar.) (HC)\nWhen notice u/s

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

reassess the earlier assessment in terms of section 147 or carry out rectification u/s 154 of the Act. He can’t usurp the power of the CIT and recommend a revision. No overlapping of powers of the authorities under the Act can be permitted. As the revision proceedings in this case have triggered with the AO sending a proposal

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

200/- for the purpose of charging stamp\nduty and other charges, thus the total investment of Rs.56,04,830/-(Rs.49,00,000/-\n+7,04,830/-) was made by the assessee jointly. As the assessee has purchased the\nproperty jointly therefore the share of the assessee comes to Rs.28,02,415/-. Hence\nthe source of the amount invested for purchasing

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

200-201].\n1.6. That the assessee Company's DTA Unit (Mahapura) rented the building and\nmachinery situated at Mahapura, Jaipur [PB 387-393] which was earlier\nowned by PinckcityColourstones Pvt. Ltd. during the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to\nAY 2012-13 and started its own domestic Operations being Non-deduction\nclaiming Unit situated at Mahapura, Jaipur [PB 204]. That

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

200 DTR 313 ( Gujarat H.C.)  Late Sh. Im Prakash Choudhary vs. JCIT in ITA No. 205/JP/2021 dated 25.05.2022.  Sky Kight Hospitality LLP vs. ACIT 90 Taxmann.com 413 ( Delhi H.C.) 8. Based on the submission so made the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessment made on a dead person is not valid and is required to be quashed

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

147 is that the assessing officer must have a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and such belief must be of jurisdictional assessing officer and not of any other assessing officer or authority or department and valid Notice u/s 148 shall be issued by jurisdictional AO. In the 6 Apoorva Sharma vs. ITO instant case

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

section 147 of the Act is bad in law and the re- assessment order is quashed. As we have quashed the reassessment on the preliminary legal ground of jurisdiction, various other grounds raised by the assessee on merits are not decided as they become only academic at this stage. Ground nos. 1 to 5 are allowed.” Further we rely

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

200/-. No scrutiny under section 143(3) of the Act. f) For assessment year 2017-18 return of income was filed on 29.10.2017 declaring total income at INR 5,43,96,440/- which was pending for assessment. 3.2 In search certain papers/ documents marked as Annexure AS-1 to AS-64 were impounded from the office premises of assessee