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 proceedings on the\nbasis of reasons recorded on incorrect assumption of facts and non-application of mind\nby the Assessing Officer at the time of recording of the reasons and even the approval\ngranted mechanically by the concerned sanctioning authority. In this regard, we refer to\nthe reasons recorded by the Assessing officer before issuance of notice u/s

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 proceedings on the\nbasis of reasons recorded on incorrect assumption of facts and non-application of mind\nby the Assessing Officer at the time of recording of the reasons and even the approval\ngranted mechanically by the concerned sanctioning authority. In this regard, we refer to\nthe reasons recorded by the Assessing officer before issuance of notice u/s

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 131 on the address of above companies requesting furnishing of books of accounts, details of bank accounts, copies of Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur ITR and other documents, but the same could not be served due to non-existence of the companies on their respective given addresses. From the Database of the department, it is gathered that

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

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

147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Mr. Manchanda, learned counsel\nfor the appellant, took us through several sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since

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

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

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

TDS of Rs.21,732/-. The impugned order thus, to this\nextent in nullity being without jurisdiction and therefore deserves to be\nquashed.\n6. Rs.6,35,00,000/-: The Id. PCIT, Udaipur in the impugned order\npassed u/s 263, raised an issue for obtaining new loans during the\nimpugned previous year of Rs.6,35,00,000/-. The impugned order thus

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 of assessee

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

147 and other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.” In view of above, notice issued u/s 148 without serving the notice and the consequential assessment order passed by non jurisdictional AO be quashed. Ground No.2 The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.5,26,000/- u/s

SHRI KANA RAM KUMAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1377/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2008-09 Kana Ram Kumawat, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. “Wisdom”, 23 Purohit Ji Baas, Ward- 2(1), Hawa Sarak, Laxmi Dharm Kanta Jaipur. Gali End, 22 Godam, Jaipur- 302006. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahcpk 0149 H Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Anil Kaushik (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 16/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jaipur Dated 11/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2008-09. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed U/S 148/144 By Ld. Ao Is Illegal & Bad In Law & Is Invalid Abinitio. 2. The Assessee Has Filed His Income Tax Return On Time, Obtained The Tax Audit Report On Time & The Return So Filed Was Processed & Refund Was Granted By The Department Which Is Duly Posted In 26As By The Department, Despite That Reassessment Proceedings Were Initiated For The Reason That The Assessee Did Not File His Itr, Thus The Very Basis Of Selection Of The Case For Reassessment U/S 147/148 Of The Act Is Ill Founded, Grossly Incorrect & False & In Contradiction With The Facts Available With The Department, Hence, The Reassessment Proceedings

TDS reflected in the same form 26AS. 3. It has a now a well settled law that reassessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer on the basis of factually incorrect reasons, as apparent in this case and without application of his mind on the material before him, renders the reassessment proceedings u/s 148 invalid ab-initio. 6 ITA 1377/JP/2019 _ Kana

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n\n1\n\n2.\nCopy of Acknowledgement along with Income tax return form filed u/s 139(5) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961.\n\n2-54\n\n3.\nCopy of Acknowledgement along with computation filed u/s 148 of the Income tax Act,\n1961\n\n55-58\n\n4.\nCopy of notice

MOHIT METALS PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. CIT (APPEALS), NFAC

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

reassessment. Even another Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Smt. Saraswati Devi vs ITO, Ward 1(2), Alwar (ITA No. 219/JP/2012) while relying upon many judgements including the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Ram Singh, 306 ITR 343 (Raj) had held that jurisdiction of the AO comes to an end if no addition

APOORVA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

reassessment proceedings initiated against her. It is also noted that no return of income was filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148. Thereafter, notices were issued u/s 142(1) and replies were submitted by the assessee. However, not accepting the replies submitted by the assessee, commission income of Rs. 21,60,840/- was 3 Apoorva Sharma

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

reassessment proceedings.\nReassessment proceedings as also subsequent recovery of tax are quashed and\nset aside.\nMrs. ShubhashriPanickerVs. CIT (2018) 166 DTR 1 (Raj.) (HC)\nNotice under sec. 148 having been sent to an address where the assessee was\nnot residing, presumption of service cannot be drawn.\nCIT Vs. ITC Hotels (2015) 231 Taxman 57 (Kar.) (HC)\nWhen notice u/s

BRIJ BIHARI AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 , JAIPUR

reassessment order passed u/s 147\nr.w.s. 143(3) is also illegal and void abinitio and is liable to be\nquashed.\"\nFurther reliance is placed on the following case laws:\nAshok Kumar Batwani Talwandi ITA No. 204/2004 dated 10.01.2017\n(Raj.)\n140 TTJ 249 ITO vs. Arum Kumar Kapoor (ITAT, Amritsar Bench)\n64 taxmann.com 159 G. Koteswara Rao v/s DCIT (ITAT

BARODA RAJASTHAN KHESTRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

147 r.w.s 144E3 dt. 25.03.2022 9. ITR form & Computation for AY 2017-18 46-56 7. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee is for the same assessment year is dealing with the third-round litigation. The assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed on 31.12.2019 wherein the additions were made. Notice u/s

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

147 of the Act, for the reason that the\nassessee has received interest other than interest on securities of Rs.3,747/-\npurchased immovable property of Rs.85,00,000/- and sold immovable property of\nRs.93,20,000/-. During the A.Y 2015-16 income of Rs.1,78,23,747/- escaped\nfrom assessment and assessee has not filed his return of income

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

147\nof the Act. Therefore, the argument of the appellant are not found to be\nacceptable.\nFurther the addition made by the AO are based on return filed in response to\nnotice issued u/s 148. Before the notice, there was no return filed by the\nassessee. Therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 is found to be valid. The\nappellant

CREATIVE REALMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

147 be quashed.\nGround No.2\nThe Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the\naddition of Rs.1,38,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act by treating the loan raised from\nfollowing parties as unexplained:- (a) Icharaj Retails Pvt. Ltd.-\nRs.15,00,000/- (b) IcharajVinimayPvt. Ltd.- Rs.20,00,000/- (c) Ladymoon\nProject