OM PRAKASH RASORIA,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

reassessment proceedings under provision of section 147 of the Act as this is bad in law and liable to be quashed.’’ ITA No. 282/JP/2016 – Revenue, A.Y. 2012-13 ‘’1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case in deleting the disallowance u/s 54B

JAI DEEP SINGH,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings has been initiated on mere change of opinion is incorrect as mere production of books of accounts or other evidence from which the AO could have with due diligence discovered the material evidence does not necessarily amount to disclosure within meaning of proviso to section 147 of the Act. (f) AO has issued notice u/s

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)

54B & 54F totaling to Rs.2,69,38,751/- is rejected and the grounds of appeal are dismissed. 7 Late Sh. Birdi Chand vs. ITO 19. Ground No. 8 relates to charging interest, which is consequential in nature. Hence, dismissed.” 5. As the assessee did not receive any relief from the order of the ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred the present

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

147 for A.Y. 2016-17 by issue of notice u/s 148 on dt. 29.03.2021 (PB156) and pursuant there to, a notice u/s 143(2) has also been issued on 18.06.2021 (PB 157-160). Thereafter, the Asst. u/s 143/147 has been dropped and completed u/s 153C on 30.03.2023 under block assessment (for AY 2016-17). Appellant has further contended that thus

RAM NARAYAN,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

reassessment made under section 147 of the Act. The AO has given the details of various notices issued to the assessee at page 2 of the impugned order as under :- Sr. Notice/Letter dated Mode of service Compliance No. 1. 29.12.2009 Notice u/s 148 By hand Non-compliance 2. 13.07.2010 Notice u/s 142(1) By hand to Anju Non-compliance (Grand

SHRI HARI RAM YADAV,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

54B for purchase of another agricultural land. Thereafter, notice U/s 263 was issued by the ITO(Technical) for and on behalf of ld Pr CIT, Alwar dated 06.10.2017 and after considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. Pr. CIT has cancelled the assessment order passed by the AO U/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28.03.2016 with a direction

JANNO,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

147 even when the notice u/s 148 is not served on the assessee 2 Smt. Janno vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Alwar 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing the indexed cost of acquisition and improvement at Rs. 7,46,508/- as against Rs. 12,02,592/- claimed by the assessee

JAIPRAKASH YADAV,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD, BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Accommodation entry) Assessment vear 2008-09 Information was received from investigation wing that assessee-company was a beneficiary of accommodation entries received from certain established entry operators During investigation, it was found that entry operators were engaged in money laundering business for beneficiaries - According to Assessing Officer, sources of transactions

SHRI MADAN LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

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

54B. The addition so made and confirmed being contrary to the provisions of law and facts may kindly be deleted in full. 5.2 Alternatively and without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case not deciding the ground by alleging that the same did not arise from

MOHAMMED SIRAJ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO, WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

147, if the addition does not sustain on the ground of reopening then the action u/s 154 is unwarranted and addition is not sustainable in law. Kindly quash the entire proceedings u/s 154 of the Act as the case is reassessment not assessment. 2. That the AO has erred on facts and in law by invoking the Section

SHRI GHASI RAM GURJAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ao The Bench 1372/Jpr/2019 21-03-2016 Order Passed 03.03.2015 U/S. 147/144 By The Ito, 7(4), Sh. Ghasi Lal Gurjar, Jaipur Vs. Ito, Jaipur Jaipur 1373/Jpr/2019 15-01-2018 Order Passed 30.09.2015 U/S. 271(1)(B) By The Ito, 7(4), Jaipur

147 of the IT Act,1961 by issue of notice U/s 148 on 08-11-2013. The notice was duly served upon the assessee on 14-11-2013. 5.1 The assessee was aksed to file his return of income for the relevant year within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice U/s 148. However, no return

SHRI GHASI LAL GURJAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ao The Bench 1372/Jpr/2019 21-03-2016 Order Passed 03.03.2015 U/S. 147/144 By The Ito, 7(4), Sh. Ghasi Lal Gurjar, Jaipur Vs. Ito, Jaipur Jaipur 1373/Jpr/2019 15-01-2018 Order Passed 30.09.2015 U/S. 271(1)(B) By The Ito, 7(4), Jaipur

147 of the IT Act,1961 by issue of notice U/s 148 on 08-11-2013. The notice was duly served upon the assessee on 14-11-2013. 5.1 The assessee was aksed to file his return of income for the relevant year within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice U/s 148. However, no return

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147, Vivek Vihar, Jagatpura, Vs. Circle-6, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGIPB3068M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Vivek Bhargav, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by : Shri. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 22/01/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date