SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

transferred by Shri Shri Madho Lal Saini and Others. Madan Mohan Gupta and his wife Smt. Shashi Kala Gupta were the shares of M/s Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. which owned the land in question. There may be a case of under valuation of shares and understatement of consideration paid by the assessee however, it is not a case of purchase

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

Price being a transaction between the related parties. However, the Assessing Officer in the concluding para of reasons recorded, assumed that all the transactions are bogus to form the belief that the income assessable in tax has escaped assessment. Therefore, there is a wide disconnect between the reasons recorded and formation of belief which shows that the Assessing Officer

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

Price being a transaction between the related parties. However, the Assessing Officer in the concluding para of reasons recorded, assumed that all the transactions are bogus to form the belief that the income assessable in tax has escaped assessment. Therefore, there is a wide disconnect between the reasons recorded and formation of belief which shows that the Assessing Officer

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

transfer the case) and not by JAO.\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v.\nACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225\n(Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO\nand FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

transfer the case) and not by JAO.\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v.\nACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225\n(Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO\nand FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

transfer the case) and not by JAO.\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v.\nACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225\n(Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO\nand FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing

PUNSUMI INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of assessee for the assessment years

Bench: The Ld.

reopening however, we find that the Assessing Officer has reproduced reasons recorded in the order passed in the set aside proceedings as under:- “Reasons for the belief that income has escaped assessment in the case of Punsumi India Ltd. A.Y. 94-95. 1. The legible copy of the Memorandum dated 30.08.2000 was received during the course of hearing of admission

PUNSUMI INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of assessee for the assessment years

Bench: The Ld.

reopening however, we find that the Assessing Officer has reproduced reasons recorded in the order passed in the set aside proceedings as under:- “Reasons for the belief that income has escaped assessment in the case of Punsumi India Ltd. A.Y. 94-95. 1. The legible copy of the Memorandum dated 30.08.2000 was received during the course of hearing of admission

PUNSUMI INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of assessee for the assessment years

Bench: The Ld.

reopening however, we find that the Assessing Officer has reproduced reasons recorded in the order passed in the set aside proceedings as under:- “Reasons for the belief that income has escaped assessment in the case of Punsumi India Ltd. A.Y. 94-95. 1. The legible copy of the Memorandum dated 30.08.2000 was received during the course of hearing of admission

RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

transferable. The Normal land can be mortgaged and owner can avail loan on it, whereas in the case of wasting mining land, the assessee can neither mortgage these lands nor can avail loan on it. Therefore, the cost incurred for acquiring these lands is only for extracting the mineral which needs to be amortized over its useful life

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

transfer the case) and not by JAO.\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v.\nACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225\n(Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO\nand FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

transfer the case) and not by JAO.\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v.\nACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai and others [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225\n(Bombay), has held that there is no question of concurrent jurisdiction of JAO\nand FAO for issuance of reopening notice under section 148 or even for passing

MUKESH JAIN HUF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reopened the\nassessment and made additions in the hands of assessee by alleging that\nassessee availed fictitious loss to the tune of Rs.12,73,535/- by misusing client\ncode modification facility. As is discussed by Id.AO also in the assessment order,\nClient Code Modification is a facility where Stock Exchange allows the trading\nMembers post close of market

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

transfer of jurisdiction from Kolkata to ACIT, central Circle, Ajmer (Rajsthan) was duly passed by the PCIT-5, Kolkata and the current AO was having jurisdiction on the date of passing the reassessment order. Thus the grounds in which the appellant had raised the objection of jurisdiction is duly dismissed. 9 Lovely promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Further, the appellant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

reopen an assessment if he has reason to believe that there was "any income chargeable to tax that has escaped assessment". In other words, it is fundamental that there must be an amount or income that should have been taxed in the assessment initially but such income had escaped assessment. It is only then that the four year period will

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

prices of penny stock\ncompany were stated to have widely fluctuated Further, information clearly\nfurnished no reason for Assessing Officer to believe that assessee's income for\nrelevant assessment year had escaped assessment - Whether, on facts, impugned order\nand notice were to be set aside - Held, yes[Paras 33, 35, 43 and 44] [In favour of\nassessee

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

transfer of the said company, the role of the assessee was not visible and found much less the purchase and sale of the land in question. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material which led to disclosure of any undisclosed income belonging to the assessee, the AO cannot reassess the income of the assessee more than the income which

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

transfer of the said company, the role of the assessee was not visible and found much less the purchase and sale of the land in question. Therefore, in the absence of any incriminating material which led to disclosure of any undisclosed income belonging to the assessee, the AO cannot reassess the income of the assessee more than the income which