KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment proceedings were deemed illegal and void.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "154", "250", "148", "147", "189(3)", "234A", "234C", "133A", "131", "194C", "282BB", "292B", "142

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment or re-\ncomputation under section 147 of the Act. In other words, if the learned\nAssessing officer, in such circumstances, proceeds with the subsequent\nproceedings, the same will be illegal and void.\nThis proposition of law has been held by the Hon'ble Court in following cases :\nY. Narayana Chetty v. ITO (1959) 35 ITR 388-392 (SC)\nCIT

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment or re-\ncomputation under section 147 of the Act. In other words, if the learned\nAssessing officer, in such circumstances, proceeds with the subsequent\nproceedings, the same will be illegal and void.\nThis proposition of law has been held by the Hon'ble Court in following cases :\nY. Narayana Chetty v. ITO (1959) 35 ITR 388-392 (SC)\nCIT

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

reassessment or re-\ncomputation under section 147 of the Act. In other words, if the learned\nAssessing officer, in such circumstances, proceeds with the subsequent\nproceedings, the same will be illegal and void.\nThis proposition of law has been held by the Hon'ble Court in following cases :\nY. Narayana Chetty v. ITO (1959) 35 ITR 388-392 (SC)\nCIT

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

142(1)\nwas issued on 21.06.2021 by JAO and on 24.01.2022 by NeFAC. From above it is evident that\nthe assessee has already availed enough time and ample opportunities, but at the end of the\nassessment submitted his incomplete reply and asked for Two Months adjournment, which\nclearly shows that the assessee has nothing to say but to delay 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.”

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

142(1)\nof the Act. In response, the assessee filed reply dated 17.03.2022 through faceless\nproceedings. The reply of the assessee was considered but the AO could not find it\nacceptable. Thus, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment proceedings.\nThe AO observed that since, the assessee has not shown LTCG or STCG in\nher

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

142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 along with a detailed questionnaire were issued\non 11.07.2017, which was duly served upon the assessee. Notice under section\n143(2) of the Act was issued on 06.10.2017. In compliance to the notices issued,\nthe authorized representative of the assessee attended and submitted some of the\nrequired details. The AO completed the assessment

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

142(1) on 11.07.2017 asking to the assesses to file the details and\nexplanations on the ITR and seized documents, which was replied.\nIn Assessment, AO has noted that during the course of search proceeding u/s\n132 on 26.08.2015 a hard disc was seized (Annexure-AS-5) from the residence of\nShanti Lal Maroo group Udaipur. A working copy

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. ASHAPURNA INFRAPROJECT PVT. LTD., , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

Section 153A, by even making reassessments without any fetters, if need be." 4. "The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal." 2 .The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company is engaged

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR vs. M/S. ASHAPURNA INFRAPROJECT PVT. LTD., , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote.

Section 153A, by even making reassessments without any fetters, if need be." 4. "The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal." 2 .The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee company is engaged

LAXMAN SINGH SOLANKI (FIRM),PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

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)

reassessment proceedings despite multiple statutory notices issued under sections 148, 142(1) and 144B. 7.1 The medical certificate relied upon

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

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. 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. 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

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI. vs. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARUDHARA GRAMIN BANK, , JODHPUR

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

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

REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS That the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the IT Act. Notice under section 148 was issued on 25/03/2015 requiring the assessee to file the return in response to the notice. Further, notice u/s 142