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

The appeal stands allowed

147 and other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.” In view of above, notice issued u/s 148 without serving the notice and the consequential assessment order passed by non jurisdictional AO be quashed. Ground No.2 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.5,26,000/- u/s

RAMESH CHAND SONI HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BEAWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

282 ITR 371 (P &H) Thus, the ld. AR has reiterated that the relaxation provided U/s 150(1) was not available to the AO because of the restriction provided U/s Sh. Ramesh Chand Soni HUF vs. ITO 150(2) and in the case where the reassessment relates to assessment year which has already become barred by limitation

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147, 148 and 149 of the Act from the corresponding Section 34 of the 1922 Act, the legal requirement of service of notice upon the Assessee in terms of Section 148 read with Section 282 (1) and Section 153 (2) of the Act is a jurisdictional pre-condition to finalizing the reassessment. (iv) The onus is on the Revenue

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

282 (Raj) (v) Jora Singh Vs. ITO (2010) 42 DTR 409 (Lucknow Bench) In view of the above facts and position of law the Hon’ble ITAT is requestesd to admit the Additional Ground of Appeal and decision may be sympathetically be taken in favour of the assessee. It is submitted that in this case notice under section

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2 the\nassessee challenges the order of the assessment passed under section 147 r.w.s.144\nof the Act. The brief fact of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society\nduly registered under the Rajasthan State Cooperative Societies Act, 1953. The\nsociety is created for mutual benefit of RMS employees, it managed and operated\nby retired employees

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2 the\nassessee challenges the order of the assessment passed under section 147 r.w.s.144\nof the Act. The brief fact of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society\nduly registered under the Rajasthan State Cooperative Societies Act, 1953. The\nsociety is created for mutual benefit of RMS employees, it managed and operated\nby retired employees

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2 the\nassessee challenges the order of the assessment passed under section 147 r.w.s.144\nof the Act. The brief fact of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society\nduly registered under the Rajasthan State Cooperative Societies Act, 1953. The\nsociety is created for mutual benefit of RMS employees, it managed and operated\nby retired employees

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

2 the\nassessee challenges the order of the assessment passed under section 147 r.w.s.144\nof the Act. The brief fact of the case are that the assessee is a Cooperative Society\nduly registered under the Rajasthan State Cooperative Societies Act, 1953. The\nsociety is created for mutual benefit of RMS employees, it managed and operated\nby retired employees

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act. 40. In the instant case, the fact that the Assessing officer has not invoked the provisions of section 153C, it shows that there was no satisfaction which has been recorded by the Assessing officer having jurisdiction over Ramesh Maniar Group that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act. 40. In the instant case, the fact that the Assessing officer has not invoked the provisions of section 153C, it shows that there was no satisfaction which has been recorded by the Assessing officer having jurisdiction over Ramesh Maniar Group that

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

147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act without appreciating true and correct facts of the case and documentary evidences brought on record by the assessee Our submissions:- At the outset, your humble appellant would like to bring your kind attention that notice issued u/s. 148 (PB Page 78)of the Act in our case was Time-barred and passed after

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

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

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

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

reassessment was completed after making additions of Rs.\n6,93,32,499/- making additions u/s 68 of the Act on account of\nunexplained credits in the grab of bogus sales and thus, the total income\nwas finally assessed at Rs.16,49,44,849/- (PB 62-69) vide the order u/s\n143/147 at 15.04.21.\nLater on, the Id. CIT acting u/s

SYLVAN GREENS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147 shall apply as they apply for the purposes of that section.] (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) as to the issue of notice shall be subject to the provisions of section 151. In Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) v. Hiren Bhatť [2011] 12 taxmann.com 198/202 Taxman 99/334 ITR 25 (Guj.), it was held by the Gujarat High Court that

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

reassess under section 147 or pass an order 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 for the purpose of Section 14A read with Rule

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

u/s 143(3) of Prem\nKunj Commosales P Ltd for AY 2014-15 dated\n07.12.2016\n146-\n152\n25. Copy of assessment order u/s 143(3) of\nPanchkoti Wholeseller P Ltd for AY 2014-15 dated\n13.12.2016\n153-\n159\n26. Copy of assessment order u/s 143(3) of Night\nBird Barter P Ltd for AY 2014-15 dated\n21.11.2016\n160-\n165

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

282 (SC). 28. Further it is settled law that initiation of 263 proceedings at the instance of Revenue Audit is impermissible. Reliance is placed upon: 20 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT • Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT v. Sohana Woolen Mills (2006) 9 TMI 157 [Compilation 1-3] has held: A reference to the provisions of section

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

282 CTR 75 (Guj.)(HC) Hon'ble Gujarat High court held that:- “S. 147 : Reassessment – Within four years – The basis of formation of belief by the AO that income liable to tax has escaped assessment must form part of reasons recorded by him – AO could not initiate reassessment proceedings merely on the basis of information supplied by DGIT (Inv.) which