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)

Reassessment pursuant to material found in search can be done through recourse to section 153C only and not by invoking the provisions of section 147/148. 1.12. The provisions of section 153C are over-riding in nature and contain non obstante clause for sections 139,147,148,149,151 and 153. 1.13. Section 147 and 153C are not interchangeable

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

4 years. In the instant case, I find that the AO had failed to establish any\nfailure on the part of appellant to disclose fully and truly all material fact necessary\nfor assessment. It is seen that this fact was brought to the notice of the AO through\nobjections filed during the reassessment proceedings, the AO vide order dt.\n25.11.2019

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

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

4 years. In the instant case, I find that the AO had failed to establish any\nfailure on the part of appellant to disclose fully and truly all material fact necessary\nfor assessment. It is seen that this fact was brought to the notice of the AO through\nobjections filed during the reassessment proceedings, the AO vide order dt.\n25.11.2019

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

4 years. In the instant case, I find that the AO had failed to establish any\nfailure on the part of appellant to disclose fully and truly all material fact necessary\nfor assessment. It is seen that this fact was brought to the notice of the AO through\nobjections filed during the reassessment proceedings, the AO vide order dt.\n25.11.2019

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

41 Sh. Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 65B(4) is not necessary if the original computer/laptop etc in which the data/information, relied upon, itself is produced and conditions under Sections 65B(2) and 65B(4) must be satisfied cumulatively. 59. It was further submitted that in case of K. Natwar Singh (ITA No. 3258,3290,4168/Del/2013) and Jagat

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

41 Sh. Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 65B(4) is not necessary if the original computer/laptop etc in which the data/information, relied upon, itself is produced and conditions under Sections 65B(2) and 65B(4) must be satisfied cumulatively. 59. It was further submitted that in case of K. Natwar Singh (ITA No. 3258,3290,4168/Del/2013) and Jagat

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)

147 in the case of search on 3rd party." 40. In view of above discussion the notices issued under section 148 and the impugned orders are quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law. 41. The first ground of challenge to initiation of proceedings under section 148 is being accepted

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

147, it is verifiable that no where name of assessee company is mentioned. In the details in column ‘From’ under the abbreviation ‘HMD’ is mentioned. The inference drawn by the A.O. on his own on the basis of alleged noting on the alleged seized papers under the head ‘HMD’ as Dangayach Hotels Pvt. Ltd. That in the reasons recorded itself

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, 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. 59/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vijay Kumar Agarwal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 7/58, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Ward 4(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Advpa 6150 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Pravin Kr. Saraswat (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 27/12/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. The Learned C.I.T. (A) Has Erred For Not Considering The Issue For Validity Of Issue Notice U/S 148 Of I.T. Act, 1961, While There Was No Escapement Of Income On Part Of Assessee. The Initiation Of Proceedings Was Only On Behest Of I.T.O. Ward 3(2), Who Has Intimated To A.O. For Advancement Of Loan Rs.53,95,000/- Given By Assessee To Pooja Agarwal, While Concern A.O. Has Accepted Said Loan In Her Hands After Detailed Examination. Hence Initiation Of 2

41) held: “If in the course of proceedings under section 147, the Assessing Officer were to come to conclusion that any income chargeable to tax which, according to his "reason to believe", had escaped assessment for any assessment year, did not escape assessment, then the mere fact, that the Assessing Officer entertained a reason to believe, albeit even a genuine

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

41,93,500/- and claimed exempt u/s.\n10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as bogus and treating this amount of\nlong term capital gain of Rs.1,37,83,051/- on sale of above mentioned\nshares as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. This is most arbitrary, unjust,\nuntenable and bad in fact

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

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.”

147 read with section 144B and (ii) notice issued 36 Late Shri Jitendra Nagar through L/R Smt. Deepika Nagar, Baran. u/s 148 by the ld. Assessing officer is without proper approval and satisfaction of higher authority u/s 151 of the Act and entire proceeding is void-ab-initio. Both these grounds are inter-related, inter-connected, therefore, these grounds

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 read with Section 144B of the Act are quashed. 10 Even if the argument of the revenue is accepted that the since the time limit for issuance of notice was not expired in this case being A. Y. 2017-18 the notice issued u/s. 148 dated 28.07.2022 [ as is issued after 3 years ] required sanction of the PCCIT

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

section 153A of the Act. Thus the said judgment is inapplicable under the facts of the present case. Another judgment cited by ld. D/R is in the case of Harshvardhan Johari vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com 449 (Jaipur-Trib) wherein it was held that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was not issued though the time

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

41 DCIT vs. Supreme Polymers Pvt. Ltd. assessed, section 153A of the Act seeks to assess the total income for the assessment year, which is clear from the first proviso thereto which provides that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year, falling within such six assessment years. The second proviso makes

VINITA BAJORIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

147 read with Section 144B of the Act are quashed. 35 Vinita Bajoria vs. ITO 10 Even if the argument of the revenue is accepted that the since the time limit for issuance of notice was not expired in this case being A. Y. 2016-17 the notice issued u/s. 148 dated 26.07.2022 [ as is issued after 3 years ] required