SDC CONSTRUCTION,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 1(3), JIAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings initiated against the assessee under Section 147. 4. In the facts and circumstances the case and in law, Id. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO, in making additions of Rs. 97,00,000, under Section 68, treating the cash credits of Rs. 72,00,000 from M/s Sanmati Gems

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)

B Ltd. [2017] 83 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi) 1.6.5. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi) 1.7. In the case of Manzil Dinesh Kumar Shah [2018] 406 ITR 326 (Gujarat), the High Court, at Para 7-8, held that even the assessment which is completed u/s. 143(1) cannot be reopened without proper ‘reason to believe’. If the reasons

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)

4. Surving period available to 1 Day Day Includes only Revenue 30.06.2021 as per para 108,111 &112 of Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 6. Date of Issue of notice u/s 26.07.2022 50 – 55 Beyond the Surving Period 148 under new regime * Notice u/s 148 of the Act should have been issued

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

4. It is submitted that during the course of original assessment proceedings the learned AO examined the Books of account including cash book, bank account, stock register and transaction of purchase and sales, and it is after examining the case thoroughly that assessment was completed on returned income. (B) Proceeding under section 148A/148 In this case the learned AO issued

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4) by officer of the Investigation wing. In the said statement, reading it entirely, it is not forthcoming as to any reference to the appellant herein. Even further statement of Ramesh Chand Maheshwari was recorded by the AO having jurisdiction over him under section 131 dated 8.11.2017 and not by the Assessing officer having jurisdiction over the assessee. In said

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4) by officer of the Investigation wing. In the said statement, reading it entirely, it is not forthcoming as to any reference to the appellant herein. Even further statement of Ramesh Chand Maheshwari was recorded by the AO having jurisdiction over him under section 131 dated 8.11.2017 and not by the Assessing officer having jurisdiction over the assessee. In said

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

4) by officer of the Investigation wing. In the said statement, reading it in entirely, it is not forthcoming as to any reference to the appellant herein. Even further statement of Ramesh Chand Maheshwari was recorded by the AO having jurisdiction over him under section 131 dated 8.11.2017 and not by the Assessing officer having jurisdiction over the assessee company

SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, 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. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

b ) not served upon him in time; or (c) served upon him in an improper manner: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply where the assessee has raised such objection before the completion of such assessment or reassessment.] In this regard, it is submitted that section 292BB provides that a notice shall be deemed to be served

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

249 ITO vs. Arum Kumar Kapoor (ITAT, Amritsar Bench)\n64 taxmann.com 159 G. Koteswara Rao v/s DCIT (ITAT, Visakhapatnam)\nRajat Shubra Chatterji vs. ACIT in ITA no. 2403/Del/2015 (ITAT, Delhi)\nPrakash Chand Kothari in ITA No. 1190/JP/2019 (ITAT, Jaipur)\n\nIt is thus submitted that the consequent re-assessment order passed u/s 147 is\nwithout jurisdiction and deserves

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

147 and thus, the notice issued under section 148 and consequent reassessment proceedings are quashed and set-aside. 19. Now, we refer to the appeal filed by the Revenue wherein the findings of the ld CIT(A) have been challenged. 20. In this regard, the ld DR relied on the findings of the AO and our reference was drawn

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order passed\nu/s 147 r.w.s.143(3) is also illegal and void abinitio and is liable to be quashed.”\n\nFurther reliance is placed on the following case laws:\n\nAshok Kumar BatwaniTalwandi ITA No. 204/2004 dated 10.01.2017 (Raj.)\n\n140 TTJ 249 ITO vs. Arum Kumar Kapoor (ITAT, Amritsar Bench)\n\n64 taxmann.com 159 G. Koteswara Rao v/s DCIT

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

147 and/or to revise the assessment order\nunder Section 263 of the Act. The scope of the power/jurisdiction under\nthe different provisions of the Act would naturally be different. The power\nand jurisdiction of the Revenue to deal with a concluded assessment,\ntherefore, must be understood in the context of the provisions of the\nrelevant Sections noticed above. While doing

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

249\nITR 306 (SC). The sum and substance of the discussion is that reassessment\nproceedings under section 147 read with section 148 of the Act cannot be initiated\nmerely based on the audit report. An audit is principally intended for the purpose of\nsatisfying the auditor with regard to the sufficiency of rules and procedures\nprescribed for the purpose

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

Bench: Him.

reassess the assessee is in appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Jaipur. This appeal, has not been decided so far. However, the appellant, by his submission dated 30.07.2024 has now informed that the writ petition stands abandoned after (covered in) the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Aggrawal vs. UOI. 5.1.2 Notices u/s

BHASKAR CHOUHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIKAR

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and\nsection 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,-\n(a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing,\nseized or requisitioned, belongs to; or\n(b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned,\npertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates\nto,\nA person other

JHUNJHUNBALAJI MOTORS PVT.LTD.,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT CIRCLE-JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

147 of the Income Tax Act on 27/09/2016. On going through the\nassessment order, it is seen that the appellant was issued notice u/s 148 of the\nIT Act followed up with notices u/s 142(1) of the IT Act and subsequent show\ncause notice proposing additions and assessment u/s 144 of the IT Act. The\nassessment order records that

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

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

4,89,159/- for calculation of capital gain. Record reveals that against the said disallowance of cost of acquisition the assessee has not challenged that quantum addition made by the ld.AO and since that being the fact the ld. AO for the said disallowance initiated penalty proceeding as per the provision of section 270A of the Act and thereby ordered

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable