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—Validity—Grounds alleged in notice under s. 148 incorrect or non existent—ITO's jurisdictions is ousted the moment this situation comes to his knowledge. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Atlas Cycle Industries (1989) 180ITR 319 (P&H). On the basis of the aforesaid legal precedents it is clear that simply mentioning certain facts without application of mind

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)

Section 11(5). The requirement of Form 10 being furnished electronically was undisputedly introduced for the first time by way of the 2016 Amendment Rules. There thus clearly appears to exist plausible cause for the petitioner having been unable to effect an online filing. 27. More fundamentally, we note that the action for reassessment

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

27,217/- under the head capital gains. Subsequently, the assessee was served with notice under section 148 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act dated 25/03/2015 the assessment was completed under section 148/143(3) vide order dated 09/12/2015. LEGAL POINTS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE GROUND NO. 1 & 2 -VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

27 Nahar Colours and Coatings Private Ltd investment decisions are generally taken in the Board meetings of the company for which administrative expenses are incurred. So, it will not be correct to assume that dividend income can be earned by incurring nil or nominal expenditure. Such expenses, relating to the investments made for earning exempt income have to be disallowed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 148 of the Act and in the absence of a notice to the assessee against whom reassessment order is proposed, the said order is held to be invalid.” 20 Smt. Pushpa Chhajer q] Further also rely on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Charan Singh (P.B. Page 217 to 224). In light

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)

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect ofcompleted assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect ofcompleted/unabated 8 Tarun Murdia , Udaipur assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence ofany incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 orrequisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. 3. The following facts is also supporting

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

27. 6. On the other hand, ld. DR has relied on the order of CIT(A). She argued that since the assessee did not object the reassessment proceedings before the ld. AO, it cannot be challenged now. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of reasons, we find that

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

27. 6. On the other hand, ld. DR has relied on the order of CIT(A). She argued that since the assessee did not object the reassessment proceedings before the ld. AO, it cannot be challenged now. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of reasons, we find that

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

27. 6. On the other hand, ld. DR has relied on the order of CIT(A). She argued that since the assessee did not object the reassessment proceedings before the ld. AO, it cannot be challenged now. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of reasons, we find that

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

27. 6. On the other hand, ld. DR has relied on the order of CIT(A). She argued that since the assessee did not object the reassessment proceedings before the ld. AO, it cannot be challenged now. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of reasons, we find that

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

27. 6. On the other hand, ld. DR has relied on the order of CIT(A). She argued that since the assessee did not object the reassessment proceedings before the ld. AO, it cannot be challenged now. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of reasons, we find that

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

27. 6. On the other hand, ld. DR has relied on the order of CIT(A). She argued that since the assessee did not object the reassessment proceedings before the ld. AO, it cannot be challenged now. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of reasons, we find that

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

27 flat for financial year 2014-\n15 and 23 flats for financial year 2015-16. Accordingly he estimated the additional\ncharges of these flats and worked out to Rs.67,50,000/- and Rs.57,50,000/- for\nfinancial year 2014-15 and 2015-16 i.e A.Y. 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively by\nstating that the same is not considered

INDU BALA PORWAL,UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRE CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, ground no 5, 9 and 11 appeal is also allowed in favor as indicated above

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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961 in the case of the assessee. 37. The Ld. AR further

MANOJ KUMAR KHUBANI,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR 2 JDH, JODHPUR

In the result, stands ALLOWED

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

reassessment proceedings for AY 2016-17 and AY 2017-18, which was subsequent to the completion of assessment for AY 2018-19, the appellant rightly submitted that these loans have been taken into cognizance for making assessment for AY 2018-19. The then AO, in his wisdom, chose not to make any addition on account of these loose papers

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BARMER vs. PUSHP RAJ BOHRA, JALORE

The appeal of the revenue is allowed, in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Bleito, Ward-1, Barmer. Vs. Pushp Raj Bohra, M-09, Shivaji Nagar, Jalore - 343001. Pan No. Aanpb4456C Assessee By Shri Goutam Chand Baid, C.A. Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit (D.R.) Date Of Hearing 29.04.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 01.03.2025. Order Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Id. National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac/Cit(A)], Delhi Dated 08.02.2024 In Respect Of Assessment Year: 2017-18 Where The Department Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Is Justified In Facts & Law In Directing To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income, By Ignoring The Fact That Assesse & His Business Concerns Are Engaged In The Business Of Property & Real Estate Development & Huge Expenses Of Rs. 8.72 Cr. Were Incurred By Assessee On Development Of Projects To Earn Profit. 2. Whether The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Directing The Ao To Treat The Income From The Sale Of Immovable Properties As Income From Capital Gains Instead Of Business Income By Merely Following The Order Of Hon'Ble

reassessment order settled the issue under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Thus the case laws relied by the assessee clearly distinguishable to the facts of the present assessee's case. Thus we do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the Lower Authorities. Thus the grounds raised by the assessee are found to be devoid of merits