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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reassess total income for entire six years block assessment period\neven in case of completed/unabated assessment – Held, yes – Whether in case\nof search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, Assessing\nOfficer assumes jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A and that\nall pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated Held, yes\nWhether in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments no\naddition

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, both on legal issue\nas well as on facts

Reassessment-Reopening of assessment—\nAO on basis of AIR information noted that assessee made deposit in his bank account in PNB—\nAO recorded

SHAHNAJ,NEAR BHERUDANJI WELL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

reassessment was held to be not valid in law. Further, it is to contend that that the reopening of assessment

HEERA LAL KASARA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

reopening of assessment and copy of INS guidelines. In response to the notices under section 143(2) and 142(1), the assessee attended and submitted the requisite details, information, documents and clarifications sought as per the order sheet entries.During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed the objections vide letter dated 24.11.2016 against reassessment

PREETI SINGHVI L/H SHRI AJAY SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

assessment was made u/s 143(1) thereafter under section 143(3), thereafter on the same facts, it was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 which was finalized, again notice u/s 148 is issued on the same facts and without any new material and finalized the reassessment

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

reopening of the assessments. In\nthe case of the assessee no assessment was made before issue of notice u/s 148,\ntherefore there cannot be any reassessment

M.P. POONIA,JODHPUR vs. ITO, BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

reopening of the assessments. In the case of the assessee no assessment was made before issue of notice u/s 148, therefore there cannot be any reassessment

TARUN MURADIA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

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

reopen the concluded assessment, which is not permissible under the law. (iii) CIT V/S KABUL CHAWALA(2016) 380 ITR 573Held – Since no incriminating material was unearthed during the search, no additions could have been made to the income already assessed. Assessment u/s 153A can be carried out only on the basis of 4 Tarun Murdia , Udaipur seized material. Where

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings cannot be resorted to only to examine the facts of a case, no matter how desirable that be, unless there is a reason to believe, rather than suspect, that an income has escaped assessment. Thus, just to reopen

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings cannot be resorted to only to examine the facts of a case, no matter how desirable that be, unless there is a reason to believe, rather than suspect, that an income has escaped assessment. Thus, just to reopen

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

reopening is illegal. Sir, your attention is invited to the judgment of hon'ble Rajasthan High Court: 1. CIT Vs. Shrim Ram Singh, 306 ITR 343, wherein it has been held that once the Assessing Officer comes to conclusion that income with respect to which he had entertained "reason to believe" to have escaped assessment was found to have been

NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

reopening of the assessment. Therefore, it was inconsequential whether or not the material necessary for taking a decision was available to the Assessing officer either generally or in the form of a reply to the questionnaire served upon the assessee. (Consolidated Photo &Finvest Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2006] 281 ITR 394/151 Taxman 41 (Delhi)) 19 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

reopening of the assessment and leading to the consequential assessment stand vitiated in law. 17 Smt. Pushpa Chhajer 34. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 30.03.2021 and the order dated 18.08.2021 dismissing the objections of the petitioner are hereby quashed and all consequential proceedings including the assessment order dated 29.03.2022 are declared to be illegal, null and void with liberty

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Reassessment) Assessment year 2007-08- Where issue as to whether property that was purchased by assessee constituted one flat or two flats for purpose of exemption under section 54F was examined by Assessing Officer in original assessment, Sunil Pagaria vs. ITO reopening

DAWOODI BOHRA JAMAT,UDAIPUR vs. ITO WARD EXEMPTION UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reopening was not sustainable—Assessee’s appeal allowed. TARA ALLOYS LTD. vs. ITO (2018) 63 ITR (Trib) 0484 (Delhi) Reassessment—Income escaping assessment

APNA GHAR ASHRAM,JODHPUR vs. DDIT, CPC / ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE / JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

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

reopening of the assessment. In the case in hand it is evident from the records of the case that the respondent did not furnish the required information till after the assessments for the relevant years were completed. In the light of the above, we are of the opinion that the stand of the Revenue that the High Court erred

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ACIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment

M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK (THROUGH SUCCESSOR RAJASTHANMARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK),JODHPUR vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, PALI

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment proceeding was valid, it has only to be seen by the AO, whether there is prima facie some material on the basis of which the AO could re-open the case. Thus, the sufficiency of the correctness of the material is nothing to be considered as to this stage of the recording reasons for the reopening of the assessment