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 proceeding was based\non ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur report issued after survey u/s 133A on dated 03.12.2016. The\nassessing officer without rejecting an objection for issuance of notice under section 148 to non-\nexistent assessee and not following the procedure u/s 189(3) of the Act, arbitrarily completed an\nassessment order on 24.12.2018 without impleading the legal representatives

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 proceeding was based\non ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur report issued after survey u/s 133A on dated 03.12.2016. The\nassessing officer without rejecting an objection for issuance of notice under section 148 to non-\nexistent assessee and not following the procedure u/s 189(3) of the Act, arbitrarily completed an\nassessment order on 24.12.2018 without impleading the legal representatives

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 proceeding was based\non ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur report issued after survey u/s 133A on dated 03.12.2016. The\nassessing officer without rejecting an objection for issuance of notice under section 148 to non-\nexistent assessee and not following the procedure u/s 189(3) of the Act, arbitrarily completed an\nassessment order on 24.12.2018 without impleading the legal representatives

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 proceeding was based\non ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur report issued after survey u/s 133A on dated 03.12.2016. The\nassessing officer without rejecting an objection for issuance of notice under section 148 to non-\nexistent assessee and not following the procedure u/s 189(3) of the Act, arbitrarily completed an\nassessment order on 24.12.2018 without impleading the legal representatives

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 proceedings initiated under Section 147/148 are valid without proper service of notice under Section 148. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,75,20

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

section." 32 | P a g e 7.3.3. CIT vs. Shri Ram Singh (2008) (DPB 44-50) 217 CTR (Raj) 345 ,118: (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Raj) in which it has been observed as under: "It is only when in proceedings under s. 147 the AO, assesses or reassesses any income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for any 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.”

20. Moreover, it is submitted that DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED SAME METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND SAME SYSTEM OF MAINTAINING OF BOOKS AND ACCEPTED THE BOOK RESULTS, the reassessment proceeding and addition made, in the total income of the assessee may be deleted. 11 Heera Lal Kasara, Udaipur. Looking to above facts and legal position it is prayed that addition made

M/S. SUPER SHIV SHAKTI MINCHEM PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, , BHILWARA

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

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

20 & 21/Jodh/ 2018 Assessment Year : 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/s Super Shiv Shakti Minchem Vs. The ITO Pvt. Ltd. Ward-3, Bhilwara C-111, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara PAN NO: AALCS8492A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.A Revenue by : Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT (Sr. D.R) Date of Hearing : 21/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17/06/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET

M/S. SUPER SHIV SHAKTI MINCHEM PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, , BHILWARA

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed

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

20 & 21/Jodh/ 2018 Assessment Year : 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/s Super Shiv Shakti Minchem Vs. The ITO Pvt. Ltd. Ward-3, Bhilwara C-111, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara PAN NO: AALCS8492A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.A Revenue by : Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT (Sr. D.R) Date of Hearing : 21/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17/06/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET

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

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

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

Section 148 of the Act, was fatal to the order of reassessment. (Para 19) Consequently, there was no legal infirmity in the impugned order of the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal was dismissed." (Para 20

SMT. JAYA MOGRA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

reassessment or recomputation and an order imposing a penalty under section 271 and other provisions. In its turn, section 253 provides for appeals to the Appellate Tribunal against orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in regard to the matters mentioned therein. If there has been an appeal against the assessment or other order, the period of limitation for imposing

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

20 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd 6. APPLICATION OF MIND BUT INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS / INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLICATION OF MIND BUT BASIS OF ESTMATION BY THE A.O. IS EITHER NOT HAVING REASONABLE NEXUS WITH MATERIAL ON RECORD OR THE SAME IS NOT UNBIASED OR THE SAME IS NOT RATIONALLY MADE

LEELA RAM METHANI,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-1, BHILWARA

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

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad170/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) Vs Shri Leela Ram Methani, The Ito Near Bank Of Baroda, Ward-1, Gulabpura, Bhilwara Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akrpm2107M

20-12-2018. 2.2 Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the ld CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the AO 2.3 Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that survey proceedings took placed in the year 2018 and the transaction of purchase of plot was almost 8 years