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 vitiated.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "154", "250", "148", "133A", "131", "147", "189(3)", "234A", "234C", "282BB", "292B" ], "issues

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

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. Since all partners had died and the firm had dissolved before the notice was issued, the notice was invalid and served on a non-existent entity. The Assessing Officer failed to implead the legal heirs and did not pass a speaking order on the objections raised.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "148", "147", "189(3)", "154", "250", "133A", "131", "292B

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 invalid. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the validity of the notice and the subsequent proceedings.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "148", "147", "189(3)", "154", "250", "133A", "131", "292B

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)

292B of the Act. We accordingly find no infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, dismiss this technical ground raised by the Assessee. Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 9. Ground No. 4 relates to challenging jurisdiction and passing of Assessment Order on the ground of invalid approval u/s 153D