DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

147 and act if legally permissible. 2.7.v. The ld. CIT(A) stepping in to dictate this course compromises the AO’s independent satisfaction and creates a procedural irregularity. The ld. AO might feel bound and even compelled by the appellate order to issue a notice, 37 ITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceeding in this case can be taken only if\nincome chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by the reason of\nfailure on the part of the assessee (i) to make the return u/s 139/142(1)/148 or (ii) to disclose\nfully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

147 and\nact if legally permissible.\n2.7.v. The Id. CIT(A) stepping in to dictate this course compromises the AO's\nindependent satisfaction and creates a procedural irregularity. The Id. AO\nmight feel bound and even compelled by the appellate order to issue a notice,\n37\nITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025\nDCIT

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

147 and\nact if legally permissible.\n\n2.7.v.\nThe Id. CIT(A) stepping in to dictate this course compromises the AO's\nindependent satisfaction and creates a procedural irregularity. The Id. AO\nmight feel bound and even compelled by the appellate order to issue a notice,\n\n37\nITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others

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

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GOYAL,BEAWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, BEAWAR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

147 without disposing off the objections so raised by the assessee through a separate order. Further, there is no narration even in the assessment order that before completing the assessment proceedings, the 8 Shri Ashok Kumar Goyal, Beawar. objections were disposed off. Disposing off the objections raised by the assessee against the reasons recorded before issuance of notice u/s

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment proceeding the ld. AO noted that the assessee did not produce the books of accounts in the earlier scrutiny assessment proceeding and therefore based on the observations written in the order the re-assessment was completed by passing an order u/s 143(3)/ 147 on 5 Ram Ratan Jangir vs. ITO 24.12.2018 wherein the total income was assessed

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

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

ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

reassessment [or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be], such effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in which order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 is received by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner

ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E) , JAIPUR

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

reassessment [or fresh order under section 92CA, as the case may be],\nsuch effect shall be given within a period of three months from the end of the month in\nwhich order under section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 is received by\nthe Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or\nCommissioner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. SMT. PALLAVI MISHRA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the additional grounds of appeal as well as original ground of appeal no

147 or to give a give effect to an order in appeal u/s 250 or s. 254 or revision u/s 263/264 of the Act. It was accordingly submitted that the finding of the ld. CIT(A) that Assessing Officer has become functus officio after completion of the assessment order is as per the provisions of the Act and therefore

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

Reassessment is time barred by limitation :\n4.1 With the enactment of Finance Act, 2021, the old provisions of sections 147, 148, 149\nand 151 stood substituted with effect from 01.04.2021 and replaced by the existing\nprovisions of the said sections as per sections 1(2)(a) and 40 to 44 of the Finance Act,\n2021.\n4.2 S. 148A reads

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)

u/s 143 (3) / 147 was completed 19 DCIT vs. Sunder Das Sonkiya by Ld. A.O. at an income of Rs. 43,57,610/- by taking total income at 24,000/- as per return filed and by disallowing 25% of said purchases of Rs. 1,73,34,424/- amounting to Rs. 43,33,606/- holding them as ingenuine purchases and added

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SAPNA KARNANI, TONK PHATAK

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

u/s 153C—whether for the\nvery same year under an altogether different provision or for some other\n assessment year—the CIT(A) has travelled far beyond the scope of the appeal\nand has acted in excess of the powers expressly vested in him under Section\n251 of the Act.\n2.4 It is trite law that the jurisdiction and powers

SHRI PARESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147. Disposing off the objections raised by the assessee against the reasons recorded before issuance of notice u/s 148 though not part of statutory requirement as prescribed under the Income Tax Act, however, the same is guided by the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd (supra). There is thus a clear

SMT. MEERA DEVI, ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 Cuke Meera Devi, I.T.O., Vs. 772, Sindhi Colony, Raja Ward 6(1), Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Afnpd 6394 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Tanuj Agarwal (Fca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement :11/11/2020 Vkns'K@ Order

section - Sheo Nath Singh Vs. AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC). In view of the reasons stated above, it is humbly requested that the notice for reassessment issued u/s 147 and proceedings in consequence thereof may kindly be quashed as illegal. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR has relied on the order passed