GEMCO INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

reassess the total income, where search is conducted under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A. Therefore, in our opinion, the assessing officer is not justified in reopening the assessment under section 147 and his order is illegal and arbitrary. d. In view of above decisions statement of learned AO that no material is handed over

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

u/s 148 he accepts the contention of the assessee and holds that the income for which he had initially formed a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment has as a matter of fact not escaped assessment, it is not open to him to independently assess some other income. And if he intends to do so a fresh notice

SHRI SALASAR BALAJI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings u/s.148 of the Income Tax\nAct, 1961 against the assessee appellant.\n\n2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing\nOfficer grossly erred in not providing the relevant material & evidence and statement\nrecorded u/s.132 of the Act of Shri Mukesh Banka during the course of search\nproceeding

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 143(3)\nof I. Tax Act. This is itself apparent from the reasons so recorded wherein the alleged amount of\nescapement has mentioned incorrect, the amount alleged to be received from certain entities was\nactually did not received and form & nature of alleged accommodation entries not mention in\nreasons so recorded. Therefore, the correlation between the underlying material

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)

206 ITR 1 (Bom) (Commissioner of Income Tax v Premier Automobiles Ltd. ), when once the assessment order has been the subject matter of rectification under section 154, the self same issue cannot be the subject matter of reassessment by taking recourse to section 147 of the Act. Thus, on the facts that are available today, as far as the assessment

BRIJ BIHARI AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 , JAIPUR

section.\nAppellant prays reopening the assessment under the facts and\ncircumstances of the case and is not in accordance with law, thus\nconsequent order deserves to be quashed.\n2. On facts and circumstances of the matter the Id. CIT(A) has erred in\nconfirming the addition of Rs. 1,76,342/-made by Id.AO on the basis of\nan excel

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)

Section 292BB is not attracted. 4. Reasons recorded are not correct – On requested by the assessee the Learned Assessing Officer has supplied the copy of reasons recorded. Copy of reasons recorded is available on Paper Book Page No. 179 to 180. The Learned Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs. 25,85,740/- on the basis of reasons recorded which

SARITA GUPTA,ALWAR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

206 ITR 1 (Bom) (Commissioner of Income Tax v Premier Automobiles Ltd. ), when once the assessment order has been the subject matter of rectification under section 154, the self same issue cannot be the subject matter of reassessment by taking recourse to section 147 of the Act. Thus, on the facts that are available today, as far as the assessment

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO 7(3), JAIPUR

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

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

u/s 148 of IT Act. In the case of CIT vs Abdul Khader Ahmed (2006) 156 Taxman 206 (ker) , it was held that even if there is advetence in the reassessment proceedings to the direction of the superior officer, that by itself will not vitiate the resultant proceedings as long as the Assessing Officer has independently applied his mind

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(3), JAIPUR

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

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

u/s 148 of IT Act. In the case of CIT vs Abdul Khader Ahmed (2006) 156 Taxman 206 (ker) , it was held that even if there is advetence in the reassessment proceedings to the direction of the superior officer, that by itself will not vitiate the resultant proceedings as long as the Assessing Officer has independently applied his mind

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

reassessment was not justified.\nIn the circumstances it is submitted that the information received from the some\nother officials, gathered by them in the course of search conducted in the case of\nsome third party has been simply relied upon for reopening of assessment and\nno independent inquiry whatsoever was carried out before reaching to the\nconclusion that income

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

reassessment was not justified.\nIn the circumstances it is submitted that the information received from the some\nother officials, gathered by them in the course of search conducted in the case of\nsome third party has been simply relied upon for reopening of assessment and\nno independent inquiry whatsoever was carried out before reaching to the\nconclusion that income

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

reassessment was not justified.\nIn the circumstances it is submitted that the information received from the some\nother officials, gathered by them in the course of search conducted in the case of\nsome third party has been simply relied upon for reopening of assessment and\nno independent inquiry whatsoever was carried out before reaching to the\nconclusion that income

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

reassessment was not justified.\nIn the circumstances it is submitted that the information received from the some\nother officials, gathered by them in the course of search conducted in the case of\nsome third party has been simply relied upon for reopening of assessment and\nno independent inquiry whatsoever was carried out before reaching to the\nconclusion that income

PUNEET SINGHVI,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

reassessment proceeding by issuing notice u/s 148, is confirmed as it is apparent that the appellant has not disclosed in his Retum of Income for the year, about the transaction related to transfer of immoveable propertyandIncidence of Capital Gains in such transfer. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed in terms of direction as stated herein above, accordingly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

147 rws 144B of the 2 DCIT vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya Income Tax Act, by ITO, Ward 1 (2) and the National Faceless Assessment Unit respectively. 2. Since the issues involved in these appeals are almost identical on facts and are almost common, except the difference in figure of dispute. Thus, these appeals were heard together with the agreement

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

u/s 132(4) where certain facts are recorded, from the interpretation of which AO could conclude that there was some undisclosed income, then that statement can be 52 M/s. Bhivaram PannalalKumawat vs ACIT , Central Circle-3, Jaipur considered as incriminating material. However, in the present case, the statement stood retracted supported by reasons and subsequent to this decision various High

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT, 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

u/s 132(4) where certain facts are recorded, from the interpretation of which AO could conclude that there was some undisclosed income, then that statement can be 52 M/s. Bhivaram PannalalKumawat vs ACIT , Central Circle-3, Jaipur considered as incriminating material. However, in the present case, the statement stood retracted supported by reasons and subsequent to this decision various High