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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 and taxed the same in terms of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 1ST Appeal The assessment order so passed by assessment unit was appealed before the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC who also sustained the addition made by ld. AO. Submissions :- The appellant wishes to withdraw ground nos. 1, 5,6,7 and 8 as taken

MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

292B of the Act as it is not a procedural defect rather a substantive/ jurisdictional defect. Ground No 2: Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in stating that the show cause notice/ draft assessment order was issued on ITBA prior to issuing of the final assessment order dated 7 April

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

68 as alleged unexplained\ncredit.\nThe ld. AO has further noted that in the bank account of the assessee cehque amounting of\nRs.1,21,400/- deposited/credited during the year on various date. The ld. AO stated that assesee\nhas not filed any details and hence the ld. AO has made the addition of Rs.1,21,400/-as alleged\nunexplained income

SHRI SHYAM GIDWANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the explanation so submitted in support of source of deposit of Rs 6 lacs cannot be accepted and is hereby dismissed

292B of the IT Act." 14. In the instant case, as against provisions of section 151(1) read with proviso thereto, the provisions of section 151(2) are applicable as no assessment has been completed earlier either u/s 143(3) or section 147 and in terms of mandatory condition prescribed under section 151(2), the Assessing

GUPTA PRIME RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

292B may cure the defect of wrong invocation of section 68 can’t be accepted being jurisdictional error and same

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

292B—If a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion—If discretion is exercised under direction or in compliance with some higher authorities instruction, then it will be case of failure to exercise discretion altogether—Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly decided the legal aspect. 19 ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ Sh. Satya

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

292B—If a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion—If discretion is exercised under direction or in compliance with some higher authorities instruction, then it will be case of failure to exercise discretion altogether—Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly decided the legal aspect. 19 ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ Sh. Satya

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

292B of the Act, which cures only the\ninvalidity of assessment return or other proceedings on the ground of any mistake, defect\nor omission in such return, assessment or other proceedings. The relevant portion of the\nsaid provisions are reproduced herein for ready reference:\nReturn of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.\n292B. No return of income

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

292B of the Act, is untenable, having regard to the phraseology used in paragraph 4 of the 2019 Circular. 19. The object and purpose of the issuance of the 2019 Circular, as indicated hereinabove, inter alia, was to create an audit trail. Therefore, the communication relating to assessments, appeals, orders, etcetera which find mention in paragraph

SHRI KIRODI MAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

Appeal is dismissed

292B of the Act. 6. It is relevant to point out that sub-Section (1) and sub-Section 2 of Section 151 of the Act are two independent provisions. The definition of Joint Commissioner is contained in Section 2(28C) and the definition of Commissioner given in Section 2(16), which are as under: Joint

JYPORE MANUFATURING JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT(OSD), JAIPUR

In the result appeals filed by assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

68,172/- despite the fact that rejection of books of account has been upheld and ignoring the fact that on unaccounted sales, G.P. rate has to be higher because of evasion of local taxes and other cesses.’’ 2.1 Brief facts are - a search was conducted on 08-09-2009 in Bank locker no. 1004 standing in the name

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

292B of the Act as the assessment order so passed is in substance and effect has been passed in the status of representative assessee in conformity with and to give effect to the directions of the tribunal and thus, according to the intent and purpose of this Act. In light of aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered view that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

292B of the Act as the assessment order so passed is in substance and effect has been passed in the status of representative assessee in conformity with and to give effect to the directions of the tribunal and thus, according to the intent and purpose of this Act. In light of aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered view that

ANGURI DEVI KHANDELWAL (RADHA MOHAN KHANDELWAL (LEGAL HEIR),JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is allowed and the impugned assessment order, and the impugned order passed by Learned

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act have been upheld. 3. The only contention raised by Ld. AR for the appellant before us is that this is a matter where the assessment order dated 28.09.2021, came to be passed against a dead person, namely, Smt. Anguri Devi Khandelwal, the original assessee. Ld. AR has submitted that Smt. Anguri Devi Khandelwal passed

SUSHILA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

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

68,46,997/-\nThis appellate authority is in the view that the reasons recorded are\nstating that the assessee has made cash deposits and the addition has\nalso been made on cash deposits. The amounts mentioned for Rs.\n51,57,500 and Rs 16,89,407 are correct. However, the amount of Rs.\n51,57,500/- has been mentioned three

MAHENDRA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 by treating the exempt LTCG as alleged unexplained cash\ncredit. And also made the addition of Rs.5,76,262/- u/s 69C on account of alleged\nunexplained expenditure @ 6% for obtaining these alleged bogus LTCG.\n\n2.2\nIn first appeal before ld. CIT (A), assessee has filed detailed written\nsubmission and documents. However, the ld. CIT(A) has summarily rejected

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

292B cannot take care of any mistake in recording\nthe reasons because that section refers to \"return of income, assessment, notice,\nsummons or other proceedings"—It does not refer to the reasons recorded by the\nAO-Any invalid proceedings for assumption of jurisdiction cannot be corrected\nby s.292B\n(i) In the case of Vikram Singh vs. Income

PRADEEP KUMAR,JHUJHUNU vs. ITO WARD -2, JHUJHUNU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

292B (i) In the case of Vikram Singh vs. Income Tax Officer (2021) 63 CCH 0044 Lucknow Trib Reassessment—Escapement of income—Case of assessee was reopened u/s. 147 for deposits in bank amounting Rs.11,00,000—Held, Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., 331 ITR 236 has held that sec. 147 has this