RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147.\n\nThe AO has failed to quantify the alleged escapement of income in the\nrecorded reasons, which is crucial for belief formation as per judgment of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd.\nvs. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (SC). The belief must be based on reasonable\ngrounds and supported

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147.\nThe AO has failed to quantify the alleged escapement of income in the\nrecorded reasons, which is crucial for belief formation as per judgment of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd.\nvs. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (SC). The belief must be based on reasonable\ngrounds and supported by tangible

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147.\nThe AO has failed to quantify the alleged escapement of income in the\nrecorded reasons, which is crucial for belief formation as per judgment of Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd.\nvs. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 (SC). The belief must be based on reasonable\ngrounds and supported by tangible

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)

245/-. 2.2 Although appeal was filed by the assessee but remained unsuccessful as the Appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeal before me on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 3 GEMCO INTERNATIONAL VS ITO,WARD 2(1), JAIPUR 3.1 Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee relates

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

u/s 148 for re opening of the case\nis hereby held as devoid of any merit and is therefore rejected. The then AO was believed that there\nwas escapement of income amounting to Rs.1,65,00,440/- on account of accommodation entries from\nBanka Group. /-. Issue regarding issue of shares on premium & transaction made with M/s Alves\nSecurities

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

section 153A of the Act. Thus the said judgment is inapplicable under the facts of the present case. Another judgment cited by ld. D/R is in the case of Harshvardhan Johari vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com 449 (Jaipur-Trib) wherein it was held that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was not issued though the time

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

245-246 19. Copy of show cause notice dated 17.05.2023 issued u/s 144 of the Act 247-259 20. Copy of reply dated 19.05.2023 filed in response to show cause notice dated 17.05.2023 issued u/s 144 of the Act 260-273 21. Copy of show cause notice dated 19.05.2023 274-293 22. Copy of reply dated 24.05.2023 filed in response

WHEATONS DESIGN PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT / DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Hearing.”

147 in consequence to the reasons recorded u/s 148 is illegal and bad in law and the same be quashed. Ground No.1 10 Wheatons Design Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in disallowing the claim of provision for future expenses of Rs.34,60,713/- under section

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)

reassessment proceedings along with the reasons recordedand has not provided the same to the Appellant even at the time ofassessmentproceedings.Moreover,itishumblysubmittedbeforeyourhonour that the Hon’ble High Court in the case mentioned above hasfurther held that the reasons to believe recorded by the A.O. shoulddiscloseallthereasonsrecordedbytheA.O.forinitiationofreassessmentproceed ings.ThereasonstobelieveconveyedtoAppellantshouldalsoac companythecomment/endorsementofthesuperiorauthoritywhichintheextantcasehas notbeencommunicatedbyyourgoodselftotheAssessee.Itistobeappreciatedthat the reasons to believe should also accompany the sanctions ofapprovalfromthehigherauthorityforinitiationofproceedingsu/s147oftheAct.Same wasnotprovidedbytheLd.A.O.totheAppellantwiththe “reasonstobelieve”. • ItissubmittedthattheHon

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)

reassessment proceedings along with the reasons recordedand has not provided the same to the Appellant even at the time ofassessmentproceedings.Moreover,itishumblysubmittedbeforeyourhonour that the Hon’ble High Court in the case mentioned above hasfurther held that the reasons to believe recorded by the A.O. shoulddiscloseallthereasonsrecordedbytheA.O.forinitiationofreassessmentproceed ings.ThereasonstobelieveconveyedtoAppellantshouldalsoac companythecomment/endorsementofthesuperiorauthoritywhichintheextantcasehas notbeencommunicatedbyyourgoodselftotheAssessee.Itistobeappreciatedthat the reasons to believe should also accompany the sanctions ofapprovalfromthehigherauthorityforinitiationofproceedingsu/s147oftheAct.Same wasnotprovidedbytheLd.A.O.totheAppellantwiththe “reasonstobelieve”. • ItissubmittedthattheHon

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

reassess under section 147 or pass an order 16 Castamet Works Private Limited vs. PCIT 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

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 33(4) of the 1922 Act, analogous to Section 250/254 of the 1961 Act) do not confer on the appellate authority a power to make any direction on matters not arising in the appeal, especially as the Act provides separate mechanisms (like Section 34 of 1922 Act, now Section 147) to deal with escaped income. Accordingly, the Apex Court

NAVAL KISHORE ,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

reassess taking into consideration the other\nmaterial in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments.\nMeaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no\naddition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating\nmaterial found during the course of search under section 132 or\nrequisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the\ncompleted/unabated assessments can be re-opened

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SH. NAVAL KISHORE, KOTA

reassess taking into consideration the other \nmaterial in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. \nMeaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no \naddition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating \nmaterial found during the course of search under section 132 or \nrequisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the \ncompleted/unabated assessments can be re-opened

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

reassessment.] 21. It was submitted that section 292BB is an exclusive definition and specifically provides that a notice shall be deemed to be served in a situation that assessee has cooperated/ attended / participated in assessment/ re assessment proceedings and no objection regarding non receipt of notice was filed during assessment stage. In other words, section 292BB cures only procedural infirmities