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

273 ITR 242 (Delhi)\nand also the judgments of the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper\nSociety v. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC) and CIT v. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. (2001) 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub- section pending on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate." What is clear from this is that Section 153A

MAYA KUMARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 rws 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 04.12.2019 as well\nas the notice u/s 148 and action or proceedings u/s 147/148 are illegal, bad in law, barred\nby limitation, without jurisdiction, without approval/satisfaction from the proper or\ncompetent authority, against the principle of natural justice and various other reasons or\nand further contrary to the real facts

M/S. BANSIWALA IRON & STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, 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. 1388/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke M/S Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, D.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, Somani Building, S.C. Link Vs. Circle-3, Road, Loha Mandi, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadfb 2375 A Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri Dewang Gargieya (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

section 148 of the IT Act was dated 27th March, 2014. That was served on the Petitioner, but the reasons which were said to be recorded, annexed to this notice, came to be furnished to the Petitioner on 29th October, 2014. Thereafter, the Petitioner raised the objections on 12th December, 2014. The order passed by the Respondents, rejecting these objections

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

273 (Mum.) (SB). The said claim was not made in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act and it was contended that such claim can be made in the return filed in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act as it was over riding all proceedings earlier taken overall. The claim was not held

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

273 (Mum.) (SB). The said claim was not made in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act and it was contended that such claim can be made in the return filed in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act as it was over riding all proceedings earlier taken overall. The claim was not held

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

273 (Mum.) (SB). The said claim was not made in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act and it was contended that such claim can be made in the return filed in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act as it was over riding all proceedings earlier taken overall. The claim was not held

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

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

273 Jaipur ITAT wherein after relying upon a number of judicial pronouncements, it has been held by Hon’ble Bench that once book results are rejected and ad hoc addition has been made applying G P rate , no separate addition u/s 40A(3) can be made by making disallowance over and above ad hoc addition. 36 DTR 220 Teja Constructions

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

273 Jaipur ITAT wherein after relying upon a number of judicial pronouncements, it has been held by Hon’ble Bench that once book results are rejected and ad hoc addition has been made applying G P rate , no separate addition u/s 40A(3) can be made by making disallowance over and above ad hoc addition. 36 DTR 220 Teja Constructions

BARODA RAJASTHAN KHESTRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

273 ITR 683 (Guj): In this case, the Gujarat High Court held that the Commissioner cannot exercise revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 merely because he disagrees with the opinion of the Assessing Officer, especially if the Assessing Officer has conducted proper inquiries and applied his mind to the facts of the case. The court emphasized that the Commissioner's revisionary

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

273 pages wherein he has submitted all the relied upon evidence such as submission made before lower authorities, statement recorded and relied upon, inspectors report, Extract from the ROC website about the active status of the companies with whom the transactions are recorded extract of the bank transactions, confirmations, allotments of shares. He also submitted his averments n the written

M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

u/s 132(4) where certain facts are recorded, from the interpretation of which AO could conclude that there was some undisclosed income, then that statement can be 52 M/s. Bhivaram PannalalKumawat vs ACIT , Central Circle-3, Jaipur considered as incriminating material. However, in the present case, the statement stood retracted supported by reasons and subsequent to this decision various High

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S BHIVARAM PANNALAL KUMAWAT, JAIPUR

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

u/s 132(4) where certain facts are recorded, from the interpretation of which AO could conclude that there was some undisclosed income, then that statement can be 52 M/s. Bhivaram PannalalKumawat vs ACIT , Central Circle-3, Jaipur considered as incriminating material. However, in the present case, the statement stood retracted supported by reasons and subsequent to this decision various High

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. UDAI BUILDHOME PVT LTD, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1399, 1400, 1401 & 1486/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-02, Jaipur बनाम Vs. M/s Udai Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. 302, Golden Sunrise Apartment, Lajpat Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCU 5068 J अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: प्रत्यर्थी / Respond

273 Taxman 556 (SC)/[2020] 423 ITR 281 (SC) [05-03-2020] has observed as under.- "6.1 However, in the case where the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the other person is the same, it is sufficient by the Assessing Officer to note in the satisfaction note that the documents seized from the searched person belonged

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. UDAI BUILDHOME PVT LTD, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1399, 1400, 1401 & 1486/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Asstt. Commissioner of Income बनाम M/s Udai Buildhome Pvt. Tax, Vs. Ltd. 302, Golden Sunrise Central Circle-02, Jaipur Apartment, Lajpat Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCU 5068 J अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee

273 Taxman 556 (SC)/[2020] 423 ITR 281 (SC) [05-03-2020] has observed as under.- "6.1 However, in the case where the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the other person is the same, it is sufficient by the Assessing Officer to note in the satisfaction note that the documents seized from the searched person belonged

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

RAM KISHAN VERMA,KOTA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

273(b) are proceedings independent of and separate from the assessment proceedings. Though the expression "assessment" is used in the Act with different meanings in different contexts, so far as s. 263 is concerned, it refers to a particular proceeding that is being considered by the Commissioner and it is not possible when the Commissioner is dealing with the assessment