RAJ KUMAR GOLECHA,PALI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall— (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within

BABULAL ALIAS BALU RAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), JODHPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosainassessment Year: 2012-13

capital gains. 7. THAT the learned ITO has erred in calculating surcharge, education cess and interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. 8. THAT any other grounds of appeal may please be permitted to be added, altered, amended or deleted on or before the date of hearing of appeal. 9. THAT the appellant prays that the proceedings under section 147

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

147 of the Act dated 30.03.2016 passed in consequence to notice dated 03.2015 for Assessment Year 2008-09 in the present appeal." e] No additions was made by AO on ground based upon which the assessment was reopened i] It is submitted that the foundation of reopening was no source of investment of Rs. 48,80,350/- for construction

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

147 of the Act dated 30.03.2016 passed in consequence to notice dated 03.2015 for Assessment Year 2008-09 in the present appeal." e] No additions was made by AO on ground based upon which the assessment was reopened i] It is submitted that the foundation of reopening was no source of investment of Rs. 48,80,350/- for construction

ASHOK PANWAR HUF,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses ITA No

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Gains - Purchase and Sale of Shares Additions made on basis of information from investigation directorate that assesseebeneficiary of accommodation entries provided by penny stock companies - tribunal on consideration of period of holding of shares recording finding that long-term capital cains earned not significant amount and assessee had not taken accommodation entries - high court holding no question of law arose

MURLIDHAR KRIPLANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

capital gains. Subsequently, the assessee was served with notice under section 148 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act dated

PARASMAL SAREMAL GOGAD,PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

147 for invalid reasons by stating that there was insufficient time available with the AO to pass the assessment order. The AR argued that the assessment proceedings were carried on for more than 1 year which cannot be called as insufficient time to complete the assessment proceedings and further the AO had sought all the documentary evidences which were necessary

ITO, WARD-3, SRIGANGANAGAR vs. SHRI BADRI PRASAD, SRIGANGANAGAR

section 3 Shri Badri Prasad 45 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The assessee has not filed his return of income for the AY 2013-14 within the time limit as prescribed u/s 139 of the IT. Act, 1961. In view of these facts, there were sufficient reasons to believe that an amount of Rs. 3,28, 87,500/- (1/4th

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 147 of the Act. In the said order, the AO brought to tax a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- as short-term capital gains

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 147 of the Act. In the said order, the AO brought to tax a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- as short-term capital gains

UMRAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

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

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 147 of the Act. In the said order, the AO brought to tax a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- as short-term capital gains

SHRI TRILOCK CHAND BUGALIYA,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-2, NAGAUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Trilock Chand Bugaliya, Income Tax Officer, C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate, Vs Ward-2, Makrana 106 Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Pan: Acvpb6833F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jodhpur Dated 14.02.2020 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Dated 30.03.2013 Passed By Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Makrana. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Shri Trilock Chand Bugaliya

147 dated 30.03.2013 passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Makrana. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : Shri Trilock Chand Bugaliya “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld CIT (A) grossly erred in upholding the validity of notice u/s 148 issued by the ld AO. 2. That on the facts

MANGILAL DATLA,BANSWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BANSWARA, BANSWARA

section 50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere mentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale consideration as per the sale deed was Rs. 50 lakhs and that the assessee had by filing the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain." 1.2.2 In the case of Vijay Harish Chandra

SHRI NAINA RAM,JALORE vs. ITO,WARD-1, JALORE

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainish Nainai Ram, Vs The Ito, S/O Dhanna Ram Bheel, Ward-1, Jalore 271, Hatam Ki Dhani, Ramseen Road, Jalore (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ayipr6983P

section 147/ 148/ 143(3) dated 09.12.2016 is bad in law, bad in facts and without jurisdiction of the Ld. AO, amongst other the reopening jurisdiction of the Ld. AO was acquired in violation. (3) That on the facts, in the circumstances of the case & in view of evidence on record the Ld. CIT (Appeal) II Jodhpur have wrongly & erroneously

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDIAPUR, UDAIPUE

147, 148, 149, 151 and 153. However, they do not override the mandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.10 ITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024 Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. In DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice under s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

147, 148, 149, 151 and 153. However, they do not override the mandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”. 10 ITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024 Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. In DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice under s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

147, 148, 149, 151 and 153. However, they do not override the mandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”. Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. In DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice under s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed under s. 153A and such time

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

147, 148, 149, 151 and 153. However, they do not override the\nmandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.\n10\nITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024\nAshiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur.\nIn DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice\nunder s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed