KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment or re-computation under section 147. Unless, the notice was served on the proper person in the manner prescribed under section 282, the service was insufficient and AO did not have jurisdiction to re-assess the escaped income. Thus, the service of notice under section 148 was no service in the eye of law and all subsequent proceedings including

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

271(1)(c) Assessing Officer alleged that assessee had concealed its income, orders imposing penalty were invalid and liable to be cancelled. [In favor of assessee] 8 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 8 In view of the above facts and judicial decisions, the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018,\nwhich was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the\nnotice's u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018,\nwhich was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the\nnotice's u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018,\nwhich was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the\nnotice's u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018,\nwhich was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the\nnotice's u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018,\nwhich was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the\nnotice's u/s

DAYARAM YADAV,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), NFAC

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147/ 144 of the Act and order u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. Taking into account of the facts narrated above wherein assessee has not filed his return of income as stipulated u/s 139(1) of the Act and non-compliance during the assessment proceedings wherein the assessee has not complied with various notices issued on different dates

AMIT JAIN,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

271(1)(b) of the Act is leviable for the default(s) under consideration for the given assessment year. The assessee has failed to prove that there was reasonable cause as per the section 2738 of the Act for non- compliance to the statutory notice(s) in question. 7. As has been stated in the assessment order as well

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

u/s 131 on the address of above companies requesting furnishing of books of accounts, details of bank accounts, copies of Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur ITR and other documents, but the same could not be served due to non-existence of the companies on their respective given addresses. From the Database of the department, it is gathered that

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs. 6,37,200/- confirmed by him in quantum proceedings. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. 3. Since both the appeals are of the same assessee and related to same assessment year and argued

RAJKUMAR ASNANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(b) of the Act. The ld. AO as well as ld. CIT(A) also nowhere stated that\nthese notices has been served upon the assessee.\n5. Appeal of Quantum is pending: Further it is submitted that the appeal against the assessment\norder was pending, where we had taken the ground of non services of notice and the fate

NITU KHADARIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), NCRB BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention that the assessee had filed complete details, along with supporting evidence, which was being duly reflected on the ITBA portal, but the Ld.AO did not give cognizance to the same, and passed the assessment order u/s 144, by falsely stating that the assessee

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.6,37,200/-\nconfirmed by him in quantum proceedings.\n2.\nThe appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal.\n3.\nNecessary cost be awarded to the assessee.\n3.\nSince both the appeals are of the same assessee and related to\nsame assessment year and argued

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

reassessment proceedings initiated by notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were not legally transferred by the Chief Commissioner/Director General, Kolkata after recording and communicating the reasons and providing opportunity to the appellant as prescribed u/s 127(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

reassessment under Sections 139,147,148,149,151 & 153. " In view of the above discussion, the assessment completed u/s 144 deserves to be quashed. The order of the Learned CIT(A) also deserved to be quashed on this ground. Additional Ground No.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned

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

reassessment under Section 147, 148 & 148A of the Act in a faceless manner. Proceedings under Section 147 and Section 148 of the Act would now have to be taken as per the 34 ITA No. 656/JP/2023 & CO No. 06/JP/2023 ITO vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni procedure legislated by the Parliament in respect of reopening/ re-assessment i.e., proceedings under Section 148A

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

Reassessment – Service of notice – Primary email id – Notice\nissued on the secondary notice\nService of the notice is not valid\n147, 282, Rule 127, Art. 226]\nFailure to participate in the proceedings\nReassessment was quashed. [S. 144, 144B,\n1.4The ITAT, Pune Bench, in the case of York Transport Equipment (India) Pvt. Ltd.\nvs. ITO in ITA No.125/PUN/2024, has held that

ARJUN SINGH,KOTA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

u/s 271(1)c) has undergone a substantial change after the insertion of Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) w.e.f. 01.04.1976. Explanation (1) to section 271(1)(c) raises a presumption that as and when any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total income the same shall be deemed or represent the income in respect of which