SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68, section 65. section 69A, section 698, section 690 or section 690 to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub section (1) of section 11588E has been

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIMAL CHAND SURANA HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

section 147 of the Act can be taken. The Appellant submits that the reasons recorded for reopening of the Assessment do not make out any such ‘live link’ between the materials on which conclusions are based and the actual conclusion of the Assessing officer in formation of his belief that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment

ACIT, ALWAR vs. M/S PRIME CHEM OIL LTD.,, ALWAR

147 of IT Act. Therefore, addition of Rs.1.75 Crore made by the ld. AR is deleted. The assessee gets relief accordingly. 17. Recently, this Bench in case of M/s Bright Metals Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 702/JP/14) vide our dated 24.02.2017 has extensively examined the legal proposition in the context of section 68

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

68 of the act. On the matrix as held by the Honorable Delhi high court the above issue falls within the scope of the provision of section 147

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 and 148.\n\n27. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned reassessment notice issued under\nsection 148 and further proceedings, if any, initiated pursuant to the said notice are set aside.\nThe above decision of Hon'ble High Court squarely applies to the case of appellant, as in the\npresent case also, learned AO did not make additional

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 22 May 2023 was passed by Ld. Faceless Assessing Office (“Ld. FAO”) assessing total income at Rs 7,55,95,441 by making the following addition: • Unexplained cash credits under section 68

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 22 May 2023 was passed by Ld. Faceless Assessing Office (“Ld. FAO”) assessing total income at Rs 7,55,95,441 by making the following addition: • Unexplained cash credits under section 68

KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

147 of the Income Tax Act and added the entire amount as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, along

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

68 of the Act. The reliance placed by the assessee on the decisions are as under :- Mehul V. Vyas vs. Income Tax Officer 164 ITR 296 Income Tax Officer vs. Kamal Kumar Mishra 143 ITD 686 (Lucknow) 4 Shri Rajesh Chachwani, Jaiupr. Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that the income surrendered by the assessee is income from other sources

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

68 of the Act.\n4. 2. Furthermore, commission expenditure of ₹3,25,010/- was deemed\nunexplained under Section 69C, corroborating the non-genuine nature of the\ntransactions.\nPrayer:\nIt is submitted that the reopening under Section 147

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

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

68 of the Act.\n4. 2. Furthermore, commission expenditure of ₹3,25,010/- was deemed\nunexplained under Section 69C, corroborating the non-genuine nature of the\ntransactions.\nPrayer:\nIt is submitted that the reopening under Section 147

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

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

68 of the Act.\n\n4. 2. Furthermore, commission expenditure of ₹3,25,010/- was deemed\nunexplained under Section 69C, corroborating the non-genuine nature of the\ntransactions.\n\nPrayer:\n\nIt is submitted that the reopening under Section 147

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

section 147, as substituted w.e.f. 1st April 1989,\nif the AO, for whatever reason, has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, it\nconfers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment where the case is not covered by proviso to\nsection 147.\n\n4.2 The assessee has also raised objection that any general statement without going the test

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 of the Act to reopen the assessment proceedings does not satisfy the requirement of law and is hereby set-aside. 42. In the result, ground no. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal was not pressed during the course of hearing, hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. Ground

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 of the Act to reopen the assessment proceedings does not satisfy the requirement of law and is hereby set-aside. 42. In the result, ground no. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal was not pressed during the course of hearing, hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. Ground

PRABHATI DEVI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD DAUSA , DAUSA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

68, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of\nthe Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the\nso-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough\nback own funds, hence, there is no ground/material to form reasonable belief

SMT. LAKSHMI AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to costs

Bench: recording satisfaction for issuance of notice since the information is specific. Thus the reasons recorded for re-opening is on borrowed satisfaction and not on any satisfaction by the AO. The

68, read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Cash credit (Share capital)-Assessment year 2010-11-For relevant

SMT. SHEELA YOGI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 3 & 4 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed

Bench: Him Under Rule 46A Of The Income Tax Act, 1962. 2(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act.

68 of the Act during such reassessment proceedings where the invocation of these two 11 Sheela Yogi, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur sections is in entirely different set of circumstances as it clear from the wordings of these two sections. In this regard, useful reference can be drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case