SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

4) of the Act for which the specific remedy is provided u/s 153C of the Act. For ready reference we quote section 153C as under:- “ 153C. 79[(1)] 80[Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other

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 147 r.w.s 148? Ground No. 1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in quashing the reopening and reassessment under Section 147 of the Act ignoring that the case was reopened as per clause (c) of Explanation 2 to Section 147 and with the Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

section 147\nThe 2nd last para of the 1st page of the Jurisdictional AO's report is a para numbered (i),\nwhich deals with the limitation aspect, does not anywhere contradicts the proviso to\nsection 147 that restricts the ld. AO to take action u/s 147 after a lapse of four years if the\nassessment u/s 143(3) has earlier

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

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

147 of the Act was not valid and the same is\nquashed. The appeal on Ground No 1 to 1.3 are thus allowed.\n1. In view of the above decision on Ground No 1 to 1.3, appeal on Ground No 2 to\n2.4, 3, 4 and 5 have become infructuous and no further adjudication is required on\nmerits

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

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

147 of the Act was not valid and the same is\nquashed. The appeal on Ground No 1 to 1.3 are thus allowed.\n\n1. In view of the above decision on Ground No 1 to 1.3, appeal on Ground No 2 to\n2.4, 3, 4 and 5 have become infructuous and no further adjudication is required on\nmerits

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

147 of the Act was not valid and the same is\nquashed. The appeal on Ground No 1 to 1.3 are thus allowed.\n1. In view of the above decision on Ground No 1 to 1.3, appeal on Ground No 2 to\n2.4, 3, 4 and 5 have become infructuous and no further adjudication is required on\nmerits

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)

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person 5 Ajay Bakliwal vs. ACIT where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003 [but on or before the 31st day of March

SMT. LAKSHMI AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to costs

Bench: recording satisfaction for issuance of notice since the information is specific. Thus the reasons recorded for re-opening is on borrowed satisfaction and not on any satisfaction by the AO. The

u/s 147 of the Act before the AO during the course of reassessment proceedings. Only after evaluating and verifying the records in data base, it was found and noticed by the AO that the 13 SMT. LAKSHMI AGARWAL VS ITO, WARD 4(5), JAIPUR assessee had not filed her return of income. Therefore, under these circumstances, no original scrutiny proceedings

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections of 153C of the Act and therefore consequential order passed u/s 147 of the Act is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 1.4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the action of ld. AO in reopening the assessment, beyond the specified time line. Thus, the reassessment proceedings initiated is time barred and entire

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 instead of section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the ld. AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the reassessment proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction.” ITA Nos. 1190 & 1298/JP/2019 & 66/JP/2020 3 Sh. Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 instead of section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of the ld. AO is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the reassessment proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction.” ITA Nos. 1190 & 1298/JP/2019 & 66/JP/2020 3 Sh. Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

SAVITA GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO, DELHI

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in section 153A.” 4. Section 153C of the Act begins with a non-obstante clause and overrides sections 139, 147, 148, 149, 151, and 153. It mandates that if during a search (initiated on or before 31st March, 2021], any books of account, documents

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

5 M/s Apollo Animal Medical Group Trust vs. ITO (E) 7. It was submitted that the proviso to section 147 provides for an additional condition for assuming jurisdiction u/s 147. It provides that where assessment already stands completed u/s 143(3) or 147, and four years from the end of relevant assessment year have elapsed then reopening can be done

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,- (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, A person other than

DCIT, CC-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S. DANGAYACH HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

5 M/s Dangayach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. Further, PAN No. of the company was also written in the excel file. On further examination of these pen drives, it was also found that amount of transaction was mentioned after suppressing ‘five zeros’ i.e. Rs. 4,40,00,000/- was mentioned as 440.00 in the form of different entries

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)

5,26,000/- with supporting documents the submission of the appellant is not acceptable. Therefore, in the absence of documentary evidences the said payment can not be allowed as a business expenditure. The AO is directed to disallowed the said amount u/s 37(1) as inadmissible expenditure. The action of the AO to invoke section 69A is not sustainable

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

4. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to\nDirect Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re- opening could be done under above two conditions and\nfulfilment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back\nassessment, but in section 147

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

4. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to\nDirect Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re- opening could be done under above two conditions and\nfulfilment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back\nassessment, but in section 147