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)

Sections 68 and 69C, as the additions were based on credible evidence of unexplained share application money and commission payments. B. Grounds of Appeal 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in quashing the reopening and reassessment u/s 147

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

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

Sections 68 and 69C, as the additions\nwere based on credible evidence of unexplained share application money\nand commission payments.\nB. Grounds of Appeal\n1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in\nquashing the reopening and reassessment u/s 147

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

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

Sections 68 and 69C, as the additions\nwere based on credible evidence of unexplained share application money\nand commission payments.\n\nB. Grounds of Appeal\n\n1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in\nquashing the reopening and reassessment u/s 147

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

Sections 68 and 69C, as the additions\nwere based on credible evidence of unexplained share application money\nand commission payments.\nB. Grounds of Appeal\n1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in\nquashing the reopening and reassessment u/s 147

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 68, not merely the peak. Relied on: PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) Pr. CIT v. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 138 taxmann.com 499 (SC) 7. Misplaced Reliance on Abhisar Buildwell (SC) Inapplicable The assessee's claim that reassessment under Section 147

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 148 of the Act.\n\n1.3 Accordingly, the Learned AO reopened the assessment in the present case, believing that\nlong term capital gain amounting to Rs.15,95,000/- was earned by the appellant during relevant\n assessment year. However, the grounds for reopening the assessment were fundamentally wrong.\nAs such, no long term capital gains were earned

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

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

SMT. SHEELA YOGI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 3 & 4 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed

Bench: Him Under Rule 46A Of The Income Tax Act, 1962. 2(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act.

u/s 68 of the Act during such reassessment proceedings where the invocation of these two 11 Sheela Yogi, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur sections is in entirely different set of circumstances as it clear from the wordings of these two sections. In this regard, useful reference can be drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case

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

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

reassessment was completed after making additions of Rs.\n6,93,32,499/- making additions u/s 68 of the Act on account of\nunexplained credits in the grab of bogus sales and thus, the total income\nwas finally assessed at Rs.16,49,44,849/- (PB 62-69) vide the order u/s\n143/147 at 15.04.21.\nLater on, the Id. CIT acting u/s

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Cash credit (Accommodation entry)\n Assessment year 2008- 09 – Information was received from investigation wing that assessee-company was\na beneficiary of accommodation entries received from certain established entry operators During\ninvestigation, it was found that entry operators were engaged in money laundering business for\nbeneficiaries - According to Assessing

KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

u/s 68 of the\nAct and that provision was not applicable to the fact of the case. To drive\nhome to this contention, he relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Bombay\nHigh Court in the case of CIT-1 vs. M/s Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.\nreported in 394 ITR 680. The investor company cannot be Sheel Company\nbecause

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Cash credit (Accommodation entry)\n Assessment year 2008- 09 – Information was received from investigation wing that assessee-company was\na beneficiary of accommodation entries received from certain established entry operators During\ninvestigation, it was found that entry operators were engaged in money laundering business for\nbeneficiaries - According to Assessing

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Cash credit (Accommodation entry)\n Assessment year 2008- 09 – Information was received from investigation wing that assessee-company was\na beneficiary of accommodation entries received from certain established entry operators During\ninvestigation, it was found that entry operators were engaged in money laundering business for\nbeneficiaries - According to Assessing

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

68, read with section 147, of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Cash credit (Accommodation entry)\n Assessment year 2008- 09 – Information was received from investigation wing that assessee-company was\na beneficiary of accommodation entries received from certain established entry operators During\ninvestigation, it was found that entry operators were engaged in money laundering business for\nbeneficiaries - According to Assessing

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment\norder so passed deserves to be held bad in law.”\n\n2.2 As regards admission of additional ground so taken by assessee is\nconcerned, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that though legal\nground against order passed u/s 147 has been taken requesting it to\nconsider as bad in law, however, for the sake of clarity, additional

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)

u/s 147, the first proviso to section 147 is not applicable to the case." 31. We are at loss to comprehend as to how availing of a loan by the assessee as reflected in its books of account could be a reason for the AO to believe that the assessee's income had escaped assessment. There is no material

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