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

LATE SHRI JITENDRA NAGAR THROUGH HIS L/R SMT. DEEPIKA NAGAR,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BARAN, BARAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

VIII of the Finance Act, 2016 (28 of 2016) (hereinafter referred to as the Finance Act) and the completion of any action, referred to in clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the said Act, relates to sending an intimation under sub-section (1) of section 168 of the Finance Act, and the time limit for completion

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

36(1)(viii) and the assessee by making the claim\nwas trying whether the officer could be persuaded to commit a mistake and get the\nclaim approved. The assessee initially succeeded because the officer accepted\nthe return probably because the assessee being a Government of Kerala concern\nwas not expected to make a bogus claim in the return filed. However

MRS. RENU SEHGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

147, 148 and 151 of the Act and determine the total income of the assessee. 21. The argument raised by the counsel for the appellant to the effect that once a notice under Section 153A of the Act is issued, the assessments for six years are at large both for the AO and assessee has no warrant

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)

36 Taxmann.com 523. In the said case, the facts were that A search under Section 132(1) of the Act was conducted at various business premises of Suncity Alloys Group of Companies, Jodhpur, to which, the appellant firm belong and at the residence of directors/partners of various firms/companies on 20.02.2004. Several incriminating documents were recovered from the residential premises

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)

36 Taxmann.com 523. In the said case, the facts were that A search under Section 132(1) of the Act was conducted at various business premises of Suncity Alloys Group of Companies, Jodhpur, to which, the appellant firm belong and at the residence of directors/partners of various firms/companies on 20.02.2004. Several incriminating documents were recovered from the residential premises

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)

36 Taxmann.com 523. In the said case, the facts were that A search under Section 132(1) of the Act was conducted at various business premises of Suncity Alloys Group of Companies, Jodhpur, to which, the appellant firm belong and at the residence of directors/partners of various firms/companies on 20.02.2004. Several incriminating documents were recovered from the residential premises

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

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

viii), a notice, through the National Faceless Assessment Centre, under section 144, giving him an opportunity to show-cause on a date and time as specified in such notice as to why the assessment in his case should not be completed to the best of its judgment; (x) the assessee shall, within the time specified in the notice referred

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

147 and other related sections. Thus, the assessment u/s 153A are not de novo assessments since the purpose of making the reassessments under section 153A is subject to tax, the hitherto undisclosed income unearthed during the course of the search. It is for this reason that the second proviso to section 153A(1) provides only for the abatement

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

147 and other related sections. Thus, the assessment u/s 153A are not de novo assessments since the purpose of making the reassessments under section 153A is subject to tax, the hitherto undisclosed income unearthed during the course of the search. It is for this reason that the second proviso to section 153A(1) provides only for the abatement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

147 and other related sections. Thus, the assessment u/s 153A are not de novo assessments since the purpose of making the reassessments under section 153A is subject to tax, the hitherto undisclosed income unearthed during the course of the search. It is for this reason that the second proviso to section 153A(1) provides only for the abatement

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

147 and other related sections. Thus, the assessment u/s 153A are not de novo assessments since the purpose of making the reassessments under section 153A is subject to tax, the hitherto undisclosed income unearthed during the course of the search. It is for this reason that the second proviso to section 153A(1) provides only for the abatement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

147 and other related sections. Thus, the assessment u/s 153A are not de novo assessments since the purpose of making the reassessments under section 153A is subject to tax, the hitherto undisclosed income unearthed during the course of the search. It is for this reason that the second proviso to section 153A(1) provides only for the abatement

SHRI BANNA LAL JAT,BHILWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, theses appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

147 and other related sections. Thus, the assessment u/s 153A are not de novo assessments since the purpose of making the reassessments under section 153A is subject to tax, hitherto undisclosed income unearthed during the course of the search. It is for this reason that the second Shri Banna Lal Jat vs. ACIT proviso to section 153A(1) provides only

SHRI BANNA LAL JAT,BHILWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, theses appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

147 and other related sections. Thus, the assessment u/s 153A are not de novo assessments since the purpose of making the reassessments under section 153A is subject to tax, hitherto undisclosed income unearthed during the course of the search. It is for this reason that the second Shri Banna Lal Jat vs. ACIT proviso to section 153A(1) provides only

SHRI BANNA LAL JAT,BHILWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, theses appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

147 and other related sections. Thus, the assessment u/s 153A are not de novo assessments since the purpose of making the reassessments under section 153A is subject to tax, hitherto undisclosed income unearthed during the course of the search. It is for this reason that the second Shri Banna Lal Jat vs. ACIT proviso to section 153A(1) provides only

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

147 and other related sections. Thus, the assessment u/s 153A are not de novo assessments since the purpose of making the reassessments under section 153A is subject to tax, the hitherto undisclosed income unearthed during the course of the search. It is for this reason that the second proviso to Smt. Jaya Prem Bhatia, Kota. section 153A(1) provides only