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

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

u/s 148 of the Act on\n28/03/2019 merely as a process of review, the reassessment is not legally invalid. The\nappellant relied on various judicial decisions that the AO cannot reopen concluded\nassessment merely to re-examine any transaction for non-application of his mind on the\nmaterials already with him.\n\n5.13 The Hon’ble Supreme Court

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 69 and therefore, the burden lies on the Assessing officer to prove that the investment by way of cash loans has infact taken place and the amount so invested belongs to the assessee and the burden is on the Revenue to first prove the said allegations by leading positive evidence. In this regard, our reference was drawn

SHRI PRAKASH CHAND KOTHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 69 and therefore, the burden lies on the Assessing officer to prove that the investment by way of cash loans has infact taken place and the amount so invested belongs to the assessee and the burden is on the Revenue to first prove the said allegations by leading positive evidence. In this regard, our reference was drawn

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: Him.

reassessment under Sections 139,147,148,149,151 & 153. " In view of the above discussion, the assessment completed u/s 144 deserves to be quashed. The order of the Learned CIT(A) also deserved to be quashed on this ground. Additional Ground No.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned

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

SHRI SALASAR BALAJI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

91,360/-/-. Accordingly, notice under section 143(2) was issued.\nThe reasons for reopening of the case were provided to the assessee company on 24/09/2019.\nIn response to the said notices & show cause notice the AR of the assessee company vide\nemail dated 03/09/2019, have raised certain objections, all the objections have been dealt with\nin compliance to the observations

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. M/S APOLLO ANIMAL MEDICAL GROUP TRUST, JAIPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

reassessment proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction.” 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee appellant is a charitable trust running a veterinary college in the name of Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine. It is registered U/s 12AA vide order no. 29/8/2003-04/723 dated 27.06.2003. For the year under consideration, the assessee trust filed its return of income

SONU AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

91,02,068/- under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act, 1961 by making addition of Rs. 81,84,838/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 on account of unexplained money, vide his order dated 29.05.2023. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before

SHRI DIGAMBER JAIN ATIKSHAYA KESHTRA,PADAMPUA vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1, KAILASH HEIGHTS

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

u/s 147 is wrongly assumed and therefore the entire reassessment is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements where re-opening was quashed if the same was based on wrong facts:  Narain Dutt Sharma vs. ITO [2018] 91 taxmann.com 463 (Jaipur - Trib.) – Copy enclosed [CLC 1-6]. “As we have noted above

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

147 of the Act inter-alia postulates that the information received from investigation wing, emanating from the search records would not per se empower the Assessing Officer to exercise the power of reassessment. Such information with regard to escapement of income which comes into possession of an Assessing Officer has to be processed and, on the basis, thereof an opinion

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and cross

Bench: The Hearing.”

91,67,100/-. Thereafter the AO issue a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 23.03.2012 whereby proposed to disallowance the expenditure of Rs. 1,28,37,888/- incurred on maintenance of transferred area. The reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was completed on 01.03.2013. The Assessing Officer again issued a notice u/s 148 dated 25.03.2014 on the ground that

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings has been initiated on mere change of opinion is incorrect as mere production of books of accounts or other evidence from which the AO could have with due diligence discovered the material evidence does not necessarily amount to disclosure within meaning of proviso to section 147 of the Act. (f) AO has issued notice u/s

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

147. 11 Reasons for the belief that the income Reasons as per annexure page has escaped assessment 1 to 11. In view of the reasons it is requested that necessary approval as laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 151 of the IT Act, 1961 may kindly be accorded. Dated 30-03-2016 (G P Awasthi), Income Tax Officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

147. 11 Reasons for the belief that the income Reasons as per annexure page has escaped assessment 1 to 11. In view of the reasons it is requested that necessary approval as laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 151 of the IT Act, 1961 may kindly be accorded. Dated 30-03-2016 (G P Awasthi), Income Tax Officer

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

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

91,17,790/- on dated 21.10.2011 wherein an addition on account of\nsales tax subsidy of Rs.61,00,79,579/- was made. Thereafter, the case\nwas reopened and reassessment was completed vide order dated\n26.03.2015 by making a further disallowance of Rs.1,38,95,995/- u/s\n40(a)(ia) of the Act (and the total reassessed income

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 143(3)\nof I. Tax Act. This is itself apparent from the reasons so recorded wherein the alleged amount of\nescapement has mentioned incorrect, the amount alleged to be received from certain entities was\nactually did not received and form & nature of alleged accommodation entries not mention in\nreasons so recorded. Therefore, the correlation between the underlying material

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

section 153A of the Act. Thus the said judgment is inapplicable under the facts of the present case. Another judgment cited by ld. D/R is in the case of Harshvardhan Johari vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com 449 (Jaipur-Trib) wherein it was held that the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was not issued though the time