PRAMOD KUMAR CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 of the Act and allow grounds No. 3\nand 4 of the appeal.\nSince, we have quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated in the case of\nassessee, therefore, there is no need to adjudicate the other issues raised in\ngrounds No. 1,2 and 5 to 13 of the said appeal.\"\nIn view of above decision by the Tribunal

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\norder so passed deserves to be held bad in law.”\n\n2.2 As regards admission of additional ground so taken by assessee is\nconcerned, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that though legal\nground against order passed u/s 147 has been taken requesting it to\nconsider as bad in law, however, for the sake of clarity, additional

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

SHRI SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTPUTLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEHROR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act. While Section 159(2)(a) of the Act talks of a proceeding already taken against an Assessee 'before his death'. Section 159(2)(b) of the Act envisages any proceeding which could have been taken against the 7 Sh. Shambhu Dayal, Kotputli Vs. ITO, Behror deceased if he had survived. It permits

SMT. LALITA RAWAT, 40, RAWAT PALACE, NEAR MURLI MANOHAR MANDIE, BAS PADANPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-5(5), JAIPUR, WARD-5(5), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Issuing The Notice. 2. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate The Fact Of Re-Assessment Notice & Consequential Re-Assessment

reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act. While Section 159(2)(a) of the Act talks of a proceeding already taken against an Assessee 'before his death'. Section 159(2)(b) of the Act envisages any proceeding which could have been taken against the 6 Smt. Lalita Rawat, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur deceased if he had survived. It permits

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 142(1) dated 30.10.2018 in the name of assessee instead of in the name of legal heir. In response thereto the A/R of assessee vide letter dated 03.11.2018 again brought to the notice of ld. AO that Late Shri Birdi Chand is no more and left heavenly abode on 09.01.2018. In spite of these information with the knowledge

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

reassess to the completed assessment proceedings. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Saumya Construction reported in 81 taxmann.com 292 has held that there cannot be any addition of regular items shown in the books of accounts until and unless there were certain materials of incriminating nature found during the search. The word incriminating has not been

GOYAL VEGOILS LIMITED ,KASAR ,KOTA vs. DCIT , CIRCLE -2, KOTA

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the Act is bad in law and needs to be quashed. 1.15 The Hon’ble ITAT, Surat in the case of Sandipkumar Parsottambhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 08 & 09/SRT/2019 vide its judgement dated 29.11.2021, in exactly identical circumstances, following their earlier decision in the cases of Nishant Kantilal Patel & Muktaben Nishantbhai Patel has quashed

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

section 147 of the Act is bad in law and the re- assessment order is quashed. As we have quashed the reassessment on the preliminary legal ground of jurisdiction, various other grounds raised by the assessee on merits are not decided as they become only academic at this stage. Ground nos. 1 to 5 are allowed.” Further we rely

KAILASH CHAND YADAV,100, KALU BABA KI DHANI, SHEOSHINGHPUR, AKODA, PHULERA-303338 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - 1(2), 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, 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

SMT. RAMPYARI,,SARADDHANA vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act. While Section 159(2)(a) of the Act talks of a proceeding already taken against an Assessee 'before his death'. Section 159(2)(b) of the Act envisages any proceeding which could 10 Smt. Rampyari, Ajmer. have been taken against the deceased if he had survived. It permits such a proceeding

SPECTRUM FOODS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Later, during the investigation proceedings of the case, it was also found that the assessee had also obtained fake profit entry by getting the client code modified through a broker. On analysis of the original client code and the modified client code, it can be seen that there

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. HEM CHAND JAIN, JAIPUR

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

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

292 Taxman 511 (Bombay) (HC) Where AO passed order u/s 148A(d) after expiry of three years from end of relevant AY without taking approval of PCCIT as contemplated by section 151(ii), same would invalidate reassessment proceedings. Fives India Engineering & Projects (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2024) 298 Taxman 762 (Mad.) (HC) Where revenue issued notice u/s 148 to assessee

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)

147 r.w.s 144E3 dt. 25.03.2022 9. ITR form & Computation for AY 2017-18 46-56 7. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee is for the same assessment year is dealing with the third-round litigation. The assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 31.12.2019 wherein the additions were made. Notice u/s

NARESH KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

147 read with Section 1-3 1. 144B, dated 30.09.2021, for the relevant previous year. Reasons recorded for reopening by the Jurisdictional 4-6 2. Assessing Officer, for the relevant previous year. Notice dated 30.09.2020 issued by NFAC, during the course 7-8 3. of reassessment proceedings, for the relevant previous year. Submission dated 06.10.2020, submitted by the assessee, before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

u/s 148 which was disposed off vide order dated 05.12.2019.\nFrom perusal of reasons for reopening, it is observed that the ld. AO was\nproceeding on the fact of receipt of share capital and premium amounting to Rs.\n60,00,000/- from M/s. Blue Finvest Pvt. Ltd. and receipt of Rs.1,00,00,220/-\nfrom M/s. Vista Dealcom

PADAM KUMAR GOYAL,TONK vs. ITO WARD-TONK, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, TONK

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 148, the GKN's case (supra) does lay down that ordinarily the procedure to be followed would be as indicated in the GKN case, that is, after receiving reasons, the assessee shall lodge his preliminary objections before the Assessing Officer against the notice for reassessment and the Assessing Officer will decide the objections by a speaking order so that

ASHISH SHARMA,GOPAL PURA BYE - PASS JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147 was initiated in this case after prior approval from Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur vide his office letter No. 1519 dated 09.03.2016 and thus notice u/s 148 was issued on 12/03/2016. 3 Ashish Sharma vs. ITO 3.1 In compliance to notice issued the assessee has filed objection on 07.04.2016. Further notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 20.06.2016. Again