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

4. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to\nDirect Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re- opening could be done under above two conditions and\nfulfilment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back\nassessment, but in section 147

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

4. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to\nDirect Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re- opening could be done under above two conditions and\nfulfilment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back\nassessment, but in section 147

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

4. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to\nDirect Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re- opening could be done under above two conditions and\nfulfilment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back\nassessment, but in section 147

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

4. On going through the changes, quoted above, made to section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to\nDirect Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re- opening could be done under above two conditions and\nfulfilment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back\nassessment, but in section 147

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

147 rws143(3) dt. 30.06.2017 by taking a reasonable and possible view. Here we want to say that if the ld. AO has not examined the issues and claim of deduction u/s 80P he could have not made the assessment. When the assessee has filed reply on deduction u/s 80P (PB8-11) with all the bank details and income

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALSANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

147 rws143(3) dt. 30.06.2017 by taking a reasonable and possible view. Here we want to say that if the ld. AO has not examined the issues and claim of deduction u/s 80P he could have not made the assessment. When the assessee has filed reply on deduction u/s 80P (PB8-11) with all the bank details and income

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,PALASANA vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

147 rws143(3) dt. 30.06.2017 by taking a reasonable and possible view. Here we want to say that if the ld. AO has not examined the issues and claim of deduction u/s 80P he could have not made the assessment. When the assessee has filed reply on deduction u/s 80P (PB8-11) with all the bank details and income

M/S JAIPUR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for A

147 of the Act (only for A.Y 2011-12- & 2012- 13). (ii) Whether the ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in allowing deduction u/s 80P (2)(d) of the Act on proportionate basis instead of on the entire 3. On the first issue which relates to AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 where assessee has challenged

SOYALA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,TONK vs. ITO, TONK, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

4. We have heard both the sides in respect of admission of additional ground. The additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal in nature and also goes to the root of the matter regarding the validity of the assessment. The assessee has disputed the action of the AO in violation of provisions of section 147

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RAWATBHATA ROAD vs. BOREKHEDA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, HEAD OFFICE NEAR DWARKADIS

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

reassessment proceedings u/s 148 culminating in passing the Impugned order cannot be sustained- in the facts and circumstances of the 4 ITO, WARD 2(2), KOTA VS BOREKHEDA GRAM SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD, KOTA present matter-as discussed above, and accordingly, the corresponding ground is to be treated as ALLOWED. Before parting it is mentioned that since the ground/contentions

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

80P - Assessee against impugned order filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) with a delay of 11 days and sought condonation of delay in filing appeal stating that delay was due to non-availability of its legal consultant - Commissioner (Appeals) refused to condone delay and dismissed appeal in limine - Whether since filing an appeal in tax matters 13 Nirmal Kumar Agrawal

BALITHAL GRAM SEVA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,TONK vs. RJN-W-(107)(5), TONK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalbalithal Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Balithal Uniara Tonk, 304024 Pan No.: Aabab4614R ...... Appellant Vs.

4. In this case, reasons assigned for re-opening was cash deposit in the Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., The Uniyara, Tonk, Rajasthan amounting to Rs. 1,51,68,000/-, whereas there is no addition made on this account and rather a disallowance was made amounting to Rs. 13,04,658/- u/s. 80P of the Act claimed by the assessee, which

SH. BADALURAM,FAULADPUR, ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-BEHROR, BEHROR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4,69,750/- for the year which doesn't corroborate with the huge transaction amount of Rs 1 crore being debited from the account as shown above in figure. 32 Further, the assessee claims that the case Bhupinder Singh was opened in Contral Circle Alwar for the same reopening reason and assessee also produced the assessment order passed

ANIL KUMAR BATAR,SIKAR vs. PCIT-JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 read with section 144B of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 on 18.03.2023 at returned income of Rs.\n19,89,250/-. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT on examination of the\nassessment record noted that during the course of survey proceedings, it\nwas found that the firm M/s. Matrix JEE Academy, Sikar runs its\nbusiness from a rented building which was owned

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

reassessment notice upon him-Held, yes-\n2.4 With regard to the contention of the assessee that the assessment\ncompleted is invalid in absence of notice u/s 143(2) by the DOT, Central\nCircle-1, Jaipur who had completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT\nAct, 1961 on 18/04/2021, it is to be stated here that notice u/s

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, by the DCIT, Circle (Intl. Tax), Jaipur. 2. Assessee challenged the order of the CIT(IT)-Delhi-1 by raising the following grounds of appeal; “1. That the Impugned order u/s 263 of the Act dated 27.03.2024 and notice u/s 263 are bad in law and on facts of the case and hence