SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

reassessment\nproceeding u/s 147 and notice under\nsection 148 and all subsequent proceedings and\norders have been issued, conducted, passed without having valid jurisdiction, and\ntherefore, same are bad-in-law and hence, same is quashed-CIT(A) estimated income @\n51.84% on account of undisclosed sales-Assessee claimed that he has shown book net\nbook profit @ 11.45% and in subsequent

LATE SH. SHEKHAR DHARIWAL THROUGH L/H SMT. NIKITA DHARIWAL,DHARIWAL BHAWAN, SHASTRI MARKET, KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 159(2)(b), it is permissible for AO to issue fresh notice u/s 148 against legal representative, provided that same is not barred by limitation; he cannot continue proceedings based on an invalid notice issued u/s 148 to dead assessee—In present case, writ application succeeded— Notice issued by revenue u/s 148 were quashed” Alamelu Veerappan

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

80C. On receipt of\ninformation from ITO (Hq.) vide his letter no. 657 dated 02.07.2015 (PB Pages 3-\n4), the AO recorded reason on 27.03.2017 mentioning that \"As per information,\nthe assessee has sold the plot no.72, Gayatri Nagar at Rs.20,00,000/- on\n04.11.2009 through the sale deed which was executed by the Sub-Registrar VIII,\nJaipur. The assessee

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018,\nwhich was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the\nnotice's u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018,\nwhich was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the\nnotice's u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018,\nwhich was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the\nnotice's u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018,\nwhich was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the\nnotice's u/s

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2018,\nwhich was duly served upon the assessee on the same day. In response to the\nnotice's u/s

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO 7(3), JAIPUR

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

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

80C) 39,375/- 4. As discussed in para11 above. (other source) 55,600/- 5. As discussed in para 12 above. (u/s 69B loans) 1,30,50,000/- 6. As discussed in para 13above. (Intt. O.S.) 3,08,080/- Total income 1,37,03,680/- Agricultural income 1,00,000/- 7. Aggrieved from the order of the assessing officer, assessee preferred

RAM DHAN YADAV,CHOMU JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(3), JAIPUR

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

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

80C) 39,375/- 4. As discussed in para11 above. (other source) 55,600/- 5. As discussed in para 12 above. (u/s 69B loans) 1,30,50,000/- 6. As discussed in para 13above. (Intt. O.S.) 3,08,080/- Total income 1,37,03,680/- Agricultural income 1,00,000/- 7. Aggrieved from the order of the assessing officer, assessee preferred

GAJENDRA NATH SRIVASTAV THROUGH L/H VIPIN DEVI SRIVASTAV,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147 r.w.s. 144 read with Section 144B of the Act on 26-03-2022 in the name of the deceased assessee i.e. Shri Gajendra Nath Srivastav. Thus the ld. AR of the assesee submitted that the said assessment order passed by the AO is void ab initio and he relied upon the decision of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case

SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD -2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

80C of the Income Tax Act 7. Under the facts and circumstances, the Ld. A.O. has erred by initiating penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.’’ 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who was serving in Rajasthan Police as a sub-inspector during the year under consideration

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. VINOD KUMAR JHARCHUR HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application filed under rule 27

80C, 80D and 80ITA of Rs. 1,02,520/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny. After considering the fact of the case and details filed by the assessee, the returned income as declared by the assessee accepted in an order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 28.06.2016. Later on vide order dated 03.07.2018, the Assessing Officer rectified

MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

80C of Rs.1,00,000/- and assessee also paid some payments during F.Y. 2009-10 through PNB Bank to LIC, Max etc. at Rs.84,889/-. The AO further noted that the assessee stated that cash balance of Rs.1,47,000/- was paid out of his brokerage income already shown in ITR then as to how it is possible that assessee