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

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

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

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

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

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings. The provisions of section 147 in unambiguous terms\nmandates that the ‘reason to believe' for reopening assessment should be of Assessing Officer. In\nother words, the Assessing Officer should carryout independent exercise to examine fresh\nmaterial in his possession to come to a conclusion that the assessment warrants reopening on\naccount of escapement of income. In the present

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 147/148 of the Act, relying on the same judgment of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), CBDT Instruction No. 1/2023 (CLC 35-40), and the provisions of Section 150 of the Act. The assessee, while supporting the ultimate relief granted, is aggrieved by the directions given by the ld. CIT(A) in his order suggesting the AO initiate proceedings under Section 147/148

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 147/148 of the Act, relying on the same judgment of Abhisar Buildwell (supra), CBDT Instruction No. 1/2023 (CLC 35-40), and the provisions of Section 150 of the Act. The assessee, while supporting the ultimate relief granted, is aggrieved by the directions given by the ld. CIT(A) in his order suggesting the AO initiate proceedings under Section 147/148

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 of the IT Act, 1961 by the ITO, Ward 7(2), Jaipur. 2. That the prejudice to the above, the authorities below further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- on account of alleged unexplained cash payment.” 2 Shri Jaideep Singh vs. ITO 2. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee

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

u/s 153A r.w.s. 153B/143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2019 at total income of Rs. 43,88,06,060/- buy making an addition of Rs. 43,88,06,060/- on account of deemed income as per provisions of sec. 56(2)(viia) of the Act to the declared income of the appellant. The assessee objected to the proposed