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)

56-60 Copy of Notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 16.01.2023 10. Copy of Reply dated 30.01.2023 to notice issued u/s 143(2) read with 61-63 11. section 147 Copy of draft Assessment order dated 02.05.2023 64-68 12. Copy of Written Submission dated 13.01.2025 in filed before Ld.CIT

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act. 40. In the instant case, the fact that the Assessing officer has not invoked the provisions of section 153C, it shows that there was no satisfaction which has been recorded by the Assessing officer having jurisdiction over Ramesh Maniar Group that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of section 153A of the Act. 40. In the instant case, the fact that the Assessing officer has not invoked the provisions of section 153C, it shows that there was no satisfaction which has been recorded by the Assessing officer having jurisdiction over Ramesh Maniar Group that

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

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)

56 ITR 250 (Mysore), the High Court of Mysore was dealing with the case where the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued in the names of the assessee who were minors and not in the names of their guardians. The notices were served on a clerk of the father of the assessee who was neither an agent

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

u/s 148 was not served by the AO who passed the order and consequential by the order of assessment lacks jurisdiction. Ld. DR has not disputed the primary facts Ld. AR has relied upon the decision of our Hon'ble High Court in the case of Mrs. ShubhashriPanickerVs. CIT (2018) 166 DTR 1 (Raj.) (HC) wherein it was held

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

56, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Income from other\nsources - Chargeable as (Reassessment) - Assessing Officer worked out profit on basis of\ncontract and sub-contract income On account of oversight/mistake, he failed to add\ninterest income shown in books as other income - Subsequently, audit objections were\nraised by audit party Invoking section 147/148, Assessing Officer

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORTATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue

56 DTR 247 (Mum.) • Sterilite Indistries India Ltd. vs. ACIT 209 Taxmann 76 (Mad) The ld. AR has submitted that in the above cited decision it was held that while proceeding u/s 154 were pending the initiation of proceeding u/s 147 on the same issue is not permissible as there cannot be pararal proceedings on the same issue

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and Revenue

56 DTR 247 (Mum.) • Sterilite Indistries India Ltd. vs. ACIT 209 Taxmann 76 (Mad) The ld. AR has submitted that in the above cited decision it was held that while proceeding u/s 154 were pending the initiation of proceeding u/s 147 on the same issue is not permissible as there cannot be pararal proceedings on the same issue

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

u/s 147/1448 of the Income-\ntax Act dated 13.12.2019 Assessing total Income at Rs 90,97,047/-.\n5. 2. It is further noted and as detailed in preceding para above that during\nthe appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any substantial written\nsubmission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal\nchallenging the addition. The onus lies

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

section 148 to appellant by registered post but it was not shown that either appellant refused to take service of notice or that appellant was not available at his residence or that there was no one willing to accept service on his behalf, service of notice could not be said to be properly effected and, therefore, assessment order passed u/s

DIPTI GARG,TONK vs. ITO WD, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Dr. S Seethalakshmi

147 of the Act by ITO, Wd-TONK dated 25.12.2018. 2. Though the assessee has raised as many as five grounds of appeal but the sole grievance is against the addition of Rs.38,25,073/- made u/s. 56(2)(viib) of the Act. 3. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual earning income from salary and tuition

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

147 was unsustainable because it was not approved by the competent authority in accordance with Section 151—CIT(A) sanctioned re-assessment proceedings through issuance of notice u/s 148—ITAT’s allowed assessee’s appeal by holding that the CIT lacked the authority to sanction re-assessment proceedings through issuance of notice u/s 148— Held, Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

147 was unsustainable because it was not approved by the competent authority in accordance with Section 151—CIT(A) sanctioned re-assessment proceedings through issuance of notice u/s 148—ITAT’s allowed assessee’s appeal by holding that the CIT lacked the authority to sanction re-assessment proceedings through issuance of notice u/s 148— Held, Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad

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

56. Section 153A of the Act is titled "Assessment in case of search or requisition". It is connected to Section 132 which deals with 'search and seizure'. Both these provisions, therefore, have to be read together. Section 153A is indeed an extremely potent power which enables the Revenue to re- open at least six years of assessments earlier

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

reassessment proceedings ceased to survive, there was no justification in reducing claim of deduction under sections 80HH and 80-I - Held, yes In view of the above, reopening of assessment is patently illegal and deserves to be quashed. GROUND NO.5: REJECTION OF CLAIM U/S 24(a) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS 1,48,031 1. ASSESSING OFFICER

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

147 of the Act\nwas passed.\n\n18. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 26.07.2022 is\nquashed, resultantly, the consequential proceedings. The matter is remitted\nback to respondent to proceed with notice under Section 148-A(b) in accordance\nwith law.\n\n19. The writ petition is allowed.\n\nOn the basis of the above judgement

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

reassessment proceedings. The Assessing officer has referred to and compared the aforesaid data with data found in other pen drives as well as statements of Ramesh Chand Maheshwari recorded u/s 132(4) during the course of search and post search proceedings u/s 131 of the Act given that the said data has been found in pen drives from the premises

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and cross

Bench: The Hearing.”

56,84,24,379/-. The AO completed the scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 24.12.2009 whereby the AO allowed the deduction u/s 80IA of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 29,91,67,100/-. Thereafter the AO issue a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 23.03.2012 whereby proposed