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)

reassessment proceedings were initiated and notice u/s 148 was issued in name of dead person. In response to notice issued by AO, wife of deceased had intimated death of assessee. However, AO proceeded to complete assessment in name of legal heir without issuing notice u/s 148. It was held that proceedings were initiated against dead person after death

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

reassessment order u/s 143(3) r/w 147, has started with the total income as assessed after giving effect to the order of the CIT (A) u/s 250 dt. 09.04.2019 at Rs. 75,95,250/-. Therefore, the ld. AO cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath now. 3. It is submitted that S. 44AB

GANPATI PLAZA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BEHROR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case & in law also A.O. grossly erred in passing the assessment order without proper & unlawful service of notice u/s 148,143(2) of the Act. 3. On the facts & circumstances of the case Ld CIT (A), Alwar grossly erred in holding

GANPATI PLAZA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BEHROR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case & in law also A.O. grossly erred in passing the assessment order without proper & unlawful service of notice u/s 148,143(2) of the Act. 3. On the facts & circumstances of the case Ld CIT (A), Alwar grossly erred in holding

ITO, BARAN vs. GANPATI PLAZA, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the Revenue for the assessment year

reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case & in law also A.O. grossly erred in passing the assessment order without proper & unlawful service of notice u/s 148,143(2) of the Act. 3. On the facts & circumstances of the case Ld CIT (A), Alwar grossly erred in holding

GOYAL VEGOILS LIMITED ,KASAR ,KOTA vs. DCIT , CIRCLE -2, KOTA

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 21.11.2019 are bad in law for the want of valid jurisdiction to issue notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 1.1 The appellant very humbly submits that pursuant to filing of ITR on 24.09.2012, notice u/s 143(2) was issued in the case. During the course of assessment, complete books along

LATE SH. BHIM SEN BATRA L/H SH. HIMANSHU BATRA,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

147 of the I.T. Act. Therefore notice u/s 148 issued.” Thus it is clear that the assessment was reopened on the basis of the sale transactions of Rs. 3,14,490/- which were found entered in the Dasti books and not in the regular books of account as detected during the course of survey proceedings. We note that this

LATE SH. BHEEM SEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

147 of the I.T. Act. Therefore notice u/s 148 issued.” Thus it is clear that the assessment was reopened on the basis of the sale transactions of Rs. 3,14,490/- which were found entered in the Dasti books and not in the regular books of account as detected during the course of survey proceedings. We note that this

LATE SH. BHEEM SEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

147 of the I.T. Act. Therefore notice u/s 148 issued.” Thus it is clear that the assessment was reopened on the basis of the sale transactions of Rs. 3,14,490/- which were found entered in the Dasti books and not in the regular books of account as detected during the course of survey proceedings. We note that this

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

133A of the I. T. Act. It has been manifestly accepted by them that\nsuch penny stock companies were the conduit for converting untaxed money\nbrought on record by paying no taxes in the garb of exempted income. It was\nfurther detected that M/s Splash Media Ltd Lüharuka Media & Infra (Scrip\nCode-512048), a penny stock listed company had very

ACIT, AJMER vs. PRAKASH CHAND VIJAYVARGIYA, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

147 on dt.18-3-2013. In response to the notice, the assessee stated on dt.5-4-2013 that the original return filed on dt.29-10-2012 may be treated as the return filed in response to the reassessment notice. For the year under consideration an amount of Rs.178978405/- was determined by the Id. AO as unaccounted bank transactions. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SHRI MANISH KUMAR SINGHAL, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

147 on dt.18-3-2013. In response to the notice, the assessee stated on dt.5-4-2013 that the original return filed on dt.29-10-2012 may be treated as the return filed in response to the reassessment notice. For the year under consideration an amount of Rs.178978405/- was determined by the Id. AO as unaccounted bank transactions. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SMT. SUDARSHNA SOMANI, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

147 on dt.18-3-2013. In response to the notice, the assessee stated on dt.5-4-2013 that the original return filed on dt.29-10-2012 may be treated as the return filed in response to the reassessment notice. For the year under consideration an amount of Rs.178978405/- was determined by the Id. AO as unaccounted bank transactions. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee

ACIT, AJMER vs. ABHISHEK KUMAWAT, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

147 on dt.18-3-2013. In response to the notice, the assessee stated on dt.5-4-2013 that the original return filed on dt.29-10-2012 may be treated as the return filed in response to the reassessment notice. For the year under consideration an amount of Rs.178978405/- was determined by the Id. AO as unaccounted bank transactions. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SMT. SUDARSHNA SOMANI, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

147 on dt.18-3-2013. In response to the notice, the assessee stated on dt.5-4-2013 that the original return filed on dt.29-10-2012 may be treated as the return filed in response to the reassessment notice. For the year under consideration an amount of Rs.178978405/- was determined by the Id. AO as unaccounted bank transactions. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. SMT. KUSUM DEVI VIJAYVARGIYA, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

147 on dt.18-3-2013. In response to the notice, the assessee stated on dt.5-4-2013 that the original return filed on dt.29-10-2012 may be treated as the return filed in response to the reassessment notice. For the year under consideration an amount of Rs.178978405/- was determined by the Id. AO as unaccounted bank transactions. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMENR vs. SMT. SUDARSHNA SOMANI, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

147 on dt.18-3-2013. In response to the notice, the assessee stated on dt.5-4-2013 that the original return filed on dt.29-10-2012 may be treated as the return filed in response to the reassessment notice. For the year under consideration an amount of Rs.178978405/- was determined by the Id. AO as unaccounted bank transactions. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee

ACIT, AJMER vs. ABHISHEK KUMAWAT, KISHANGARH

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

147 on dt.18-3-2013. In response to the notice, the assessee stated on dt.5-4-2013 that the original return filed on dt.29-10-2012 may be treated as the return filed in response to the reassessment notice. For the year under consideration an amount of Rs.178978405/- was determined by the Id. AO as unaccounted bank transactions. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee