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

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

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)

section 148, before making the assessment u/s 147, the AO is required to serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish return of his income. Thus service of notice u/s 148 is a condition precedent to make the assessment u/s 147. In the present case, as evident from the assessment order, AO issued notice u/s

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

The appeal stands allowed

section 148, before making the assessment u/s 147, the AO is required to serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish return of his income. Thus service of notice u/s 148 is a condition precedent to make the assessment u/s 147. In the present case, as evident from the assessment order, AO issued notice u/s

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

57 DTR (Del) 281, 336 ITR 136 Although the assessing officer may assess or reassess income escaped from assessment and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice in the course of proceedings but if the income the escapement of which was basis of the formation of the ground for issuing

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 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 29.04.2013 in absence of a valid notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act cannot be sustained and, is quashed. 25. As we have quashed the assessment for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O, therefore, we refrain from adverting to and dealing with the other contentions, based on which, the impugned

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment order passed\nu/s 147 r.w.s.143(3) is also illegal and void abinitio and is liable to be quashed.”\n\nFurther reliance is placed on the following case laws:\n\nAshok Kumar BatwaniTalwandi ITA No. 204/2004 dated 10.01.2017 (Raj.)\n\n140 TTJ 249 ITO vs. Arum Kumar Kapoor (ITAT, Amritsar Bench)\n\n64 taxmann.com 159 G. Koteswara Rao v/s DCIT

RAM KHILARI MEENA,DAUSA vs. ITO, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

57,500 u/s 44AE, an amount of Rs. 14,341 being income from "other sources" and an amount of Rs.72,114 being long term capital gains. However, the AO had information that there are cash deposits in Bank of Baroda A/c No. 225901000006538 at Rs. 11,10,000 and also withdrawals of Rs.26,78,500. The AO observed that

J.K.V. STONEX,KISHANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KISHANGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued In the case of Raymond Woolen Mills 236 ITR 34 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court Of India held that it is only to be seen whether there was a prima facie case for reopening or not, sufficiency of reasons not to be seen. I find that the facts

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

BHASKAR CHOUHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SIKAR

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

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 deserve to be held bad in law.\n\nIt is further submitted that the validity of initiation of reassessment\nproceedings has to be judged with regard to the material available with the\nassessing officer and that too by framing the opinion strictly based on the\ndocuments and information in possession, that certain income has escaped\nassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

U/s 153A of the Act for all the assessment years on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and not on the basis of any material or information gathered during the course of search and seizure action in the case of the assessee. We find that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer as well

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

U/s 153A of the Act for all the assessment years on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and not on the basis of any material or information gathered during the course of search and seizure action in the case of the assessee. We find that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer as well

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

U/s 153A of the Act for all the assessment years on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and not on the basis of any material or information gathered during the course of search and seizure action in the case of the assessee. We find that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer as well

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

U/s 153A of the Act for all the assessment years on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and not on the basis of any material or information gathered during the course of search and seizure action in the case of the assessee. We find that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer as well

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

U/s 153A of the Act for all the assessment years on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and not on the basis of any material or information gathered during the course of search and seizure action in the case of the assessee. We find that the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer as well