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

reassessment process invalid in law. The AO's\naction in initiating proceedings u/s 147 is based on conjecture and suspicion, and falls\nfoul of the binding legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various\nHigh Courts.\nIn light of the above legal and factual position, it is respectfully submitted that the\nreassessment proceedings-initiated u/s 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

reassessment process invalid in law. The AO's\naction in initiating proceedings u/s 147 is based on conjecture and suspicion, and falls\nfoul of the binding legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various\nHigh Courts.\nIn light of the above legal and factual position, it is respectfully submitted that the\nreassessment proceedings-initiated u/s 147

SUSHILA DEVI JANGID,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 374/JP/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2010-11 Smt. Sushila Devi Jangid 65, Koshaliya Vihar Hajyawala,Muhana Mandi Ke Pass, Sanganer, Jaipur 302 029 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 7(2) Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AFMPJ 2091 P निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Utkarsh Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by :Shri Gautam Sing

Reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act for relevant A.Y still reflect as on-going proceedings under ‘For your action’ list on ‘e-proceedings’ tab on the Income Tax profile of the assessee. Also, there is no Order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 dated 24.12.2017 available under ‘For your information’ list on ‘e- proceedings’ tab on the income tax profile

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

loss are bogus and the same are claimed to avoid tax on long term capital gain. However, the basis of this conclusion is the alleged attempt of the assessee to avoid tax but no material or the transaction itself was found to be out of the book of account or discovered during the survey proceedings. Therefore, it is nothing

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

loss are bogus and the same are claimed to avoid tax on long term capital gain. However, the basis of this conclusion is the alleged attempt of the assessee to avoid tax but no material or the transaction itself was found to be out of the book of account or discovered during the survey proceedings. Therefore, it is nothing

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. The Hon'ble jurisdictional\nRajasthan High Court in the case of Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 has held as under-\n“28. If considered on that principle, leaving apart for the moment, the aspect of\ninterpretation of the word \"and\" as \"or\", the existence of the word \"also\" is of a\ngreat significance, being

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

set off of loss (including unabsorbed depreciation) was allowed against income u/s. 68, I dismiss this ground. 11. Vide ground no. 7, the appellant is contending that the assessing officer erred in not allowing credit of MAT of Rs. 22,10,576/- available for credit as per return. 11.1 Since, I have already decided issue of giving credit

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)

u/s 148 of the Act. The Hon'ble jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 has held as under- “28. If considered on that principle, leaving apart for the moment, the aspect of interpretation of the word "and" as "or", the existence of the word "also" is of a great significance, being of conjunctive

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. The Hon’ble jurisdictional\nRajasthan High Court in the case of Ram Singh 306 ITR 343 has held as under-\n\n“28. If considered on that principle, leaving apart for the moment, the aspect of\ninterpretation of the word \"and\" as \"or\", the existence of the word \"also\" is of a\ngreat significance, being

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

loss of assessee.”, i.e. by FAO, whereas, in the case of assessee company notice u/s 148 as well as u/s 148A have been issued by DCIT Circle 1 Jaipur, i.e. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay

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

u/s 143(3) of the Act. It\nhas been settled by various courts that when no addition is made in respect to the reason\nfor which the satisfaction is reached in the reasons recorded before issue of notice u/s 148\nof the Act, then the Ld. AO had no jurisdiction to make any other addition i.e. to go beyond\nthe

ADITYA CEMENT,BEHROR vs. ITO, BEHROR

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

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

loss to revenue caused by the working of the assessee the same should not have been accepted by the A.O. in the first place and otherwise revision proceedings u/s 263 and reassessment proceedings u/s 147 could have been undertaken as provided by Act. The A.O. chose it as a mistake apparent u/s 154 from the record which

ANUSHA FINVEST PVT LTD ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

set aside the order of the Learned CIT(A) on the issue in dispute. The ground No. 1.1 of the appeal is accordingly allowed. 5.5 Since we have already quashed the reassessment proceeding, we are not adjudicating other ground of the appeal challenging ITA No. 6438/Del/2019 Globus Power Generation Ltd validity of the reassessment as well as on the merit

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORTATION LTD., JAIPUR

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

loss of Rs. 1.36 Crores allowable deduction would be more than Rs. 95.11 Crores allowed in the original assessment. Thereafter, the AO without bringing the proceedings u/s 154 of the IT Act to a logical conclusion had initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of the same fact and material available on the assessment record. Thus

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

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

loss of Rs. 1.36 Crores allowable deduction would be more than Rs. 95.11 Crores allowed in the original assessment. Thereafter, the AO without bringing the proceedings u/s 154 of the IT Act to a logical conclusion had initiated the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of the same fact and material available on the assessment record. Thus

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

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed and cross

Bench: The Hearing.”

loss accounts of various industrial parks eligible for deduction u/s 80IA and notification issued under this Act. The ld. AR has submitted that in the income & expenditure the interest income including penal interest and other income are separately mentioned. Therefore, it is incorrect on the 4 ITA No. 334 & CO.No. 04 /JP/2016 ACIT vs. M/s Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment

SHRI RAJESH CHACHWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer without appreciating the provisions of the income Tax Act, 1961 by not giving the set off of business of Rs. 16,10,616/- against the income 2 Shri

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassessment proceedings as well as analysis/examination thereof during the course of reassessment proceedings and besides, other information/documentation relied upon by the Assessing officer during the course of reassessment proceedings to arrive at his findings and which forms the basis of subject addition of undisclosed investment in the impugned order. These include information received from DCIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur prior