PRADEEP KUMAR,JHUJHUNU vs. ITO WARD -2, JHUJHUNU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

7,65,000/- in the bank account and in 17 Shri Pradeep Kumar, Jhunjhunu. this regard I am of the view that as per provisions of section 147, the AO can assess or reassess any income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment for any assessment year, with respect to which he had “reason to believe” to be so, then

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

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

section 36(1)(va). No substantial question of law arises out of the\nimpugned orders of the ITAT. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M-s\nState Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.177-2011);\nCommissioner of Income Tax vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (D.B.\nIncome Tax Appeal No.189-2011), followed.\"\n4.2.4The Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench has also followed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SUPREME POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the results the appeal of the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 189/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Supreme Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 137-138, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 5773 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की ता

255 (Rajasthan)[19-03- 2024] As per the legal position if in the case of completed/unabated category of case the additions in the assessment order has only been made on the basis of material found and seized from the search action on the other assessee in that case the learned AO should have initiated the proceedings under section 153C

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

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

147 has not clothed AO with\nsuch jurisdiction therefore the action could not be upheld in the background of\nfacts of instant case. One more redeeming fact which had direct nexus with the\nsubsequent re-assessment proceedings and ramification of the same had\nculminated into re-assessment orders was the impugned order where\nAO rejected the objections submitted by Assessees

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

147 has not clothed AO with\nsuch jurisdiction therefore the action could not be upheld in the background of\nfacts of instant case. One more redeeming fact which had direct nexus with the\nsubsequent re-assessment proceedings and ramification of the same had\nculminated into re-assessment orders was the impugned order where\nAO rejected the objections submitted by Assessees

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

7. In view of the aforesaid facts of the case like the AO having passed the\nassessment order as per best judgement case and in view of the newly inserted\nproviso to section 251(1)(a), I am of the considered view that it would be proper\nto set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

255 Taxman 152 (SC) • PCIT Vs. Tupperware India Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 127 DTR 161 (Del.) 6. It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the validity of reopening of reassessment by referring to clause (c) of Explanation 2 to section 147 according to which computation of excessive depreciation allowance is deemed to be a case where income

MO. SHARIPH KURESHI,SIKAR vs. ITO WARD-4 SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section even though said issue did not find mention in the reasons recorded and the notice issued under s. 148. Since there was confusion prevailing with regard to the powers of the AO to assess or reassess on the issues for which no reasons were recorded, Expln. 3 came to be inserted as 7 Mo. Shariph Kureshi, Sikar. clarificatory

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAILASH CHAND HIRAWAT , JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM& SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1175/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, बनाम Sh. Kailash Chand Hirawat Central Circle-4, VS. 9, Narain Singh Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAKPH9224R निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Rohan Sogani, C.A. राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR, Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR सुनवाई क

255 (Rajasthan), D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019, Learned CIT(A) held that as per said decision notice u/s 148 of the Act having been quashed, the order passed by the Assessing Officer had become ineffective,. 5. In para 4.2.7 of the impugned order, Learned CIT(A) extracted findings recorded by the Hon’ble High Court. Said para 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)

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

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE vs. SIDDHARTHA TOTUKA, C-SCHEME

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

147 of the Act challenged before the Hon’ble High Court, assessee succeeded. Hon’ble Court held that since the reassessment proceedings has been carried out based on the material gathered during the course of search, the Ld. AO ought to have initiated the proceedings u/s 153C of the Act relevant for the persons “other than the searched persons

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE vs. SHWETA CHORDIA, C-SCHEME JAIPUR

10. As a result, finding no merit in these appeals filed by the department,

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

255 (Rajasthan), D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019. Learned CIT(A) has held that as per decision in the above cited case, notices u/s 148 of the Act was quashed and the assessment orders had become ineffective. Hence, these two appeals by the department. 4. Learned DR for the appellant has submitted that notices under section 148 were correctly issued

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE vs. SHWETA CHORDIA, C-SCHEME

10. As a result, finding no merit in these appeals filed by the department,

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

255 (Rajasthan), D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019. Learned CIT(A) has held that as per decision in the above cited case, notices u/s 148 of the Act was quashed and the assessment orders had become ineffective. Hence, these two appeals by the department. 4. Learned DR for the appellant has submitted that notices under section 148 were correctly issued

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

147, 148, 149, 151 & 153. 28. The language of explanation 2 to new Section 148 is akin to Section 153A and Section 153C. Corollary being that after seizing of operational period of Section 153A to 153D, the cases being dealt thereunder were circumscribed in the scope of newly substituted Section 148. 29. The Department has not set up a case

FARMAN KHAN,CHAKSU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessed u/s 147 /144B vide order dated 27.03.2023, by the Faceless Assessing officer (FAO) at the Returned Income itself.In other words, all transactionswere found disclosed and the explanations were accepted, and so no unaccounted income /Black money or evasion of tax was found by the FAO.A copy of the assessment order A.Y. 2018-19 is enclosed (As Annexure-1). 7

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SUMS EXIM PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result , ground no. 2 raised by the revenue is dismissed

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

255-260 28-04-2011 9. Statement of Shri Bhaskar recorded u/s 131 on 28-06-2011 261-270 10. Statement of Shri Sunil Mehta recorded u/s 131 on 21-06- 271-300 2011 11. Statement of Shri Bhaskar Sharma recorded u/s 131 on 01- 301-315 08-2011 Paper Book –II dated 22-08-2022 with Index S.N. Description

ISHAN ARORA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

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

147 on 26.02.2014. making additions of ₹17,26,200 as unexplained cash deposit and ₹2,84,255 as unexplained expenditure (credit card payments), without proper opportunity of being heard. A copy of the assessment order dt. 26.02.2014 is attached herewith as Annexure-1. 5. No valid notice u/s 142(1) or 148 was served. The entire assessment order was passed