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

natural justice. 2. The CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming issuance of notice by AO u/s 148 issued after death of the assessee for which he has no jurisdiction as notice can be issue into the dead person. 3. In this case first time assessment was made u/s 143(1) thereafter under section 143(3), thereafter on the same

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

147, 148, 149, 151 and 153. However, they do not override the\nmandatory provisions of Sections 142(2) or 143(2)”.\n10\nITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024\nAshiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur.\nIn DCIT Sushil Kumar Jain 134 TTJ 844 (Indore)that “Time-limit of service of notice\nunder s. 143(2) shall also apply in respect of assessments framed

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)

natural justice, and in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) under sec. 251(1)(a) of the Act, the impugned assessment order u/s. 144 is hereby set aside and referred back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment in accordance with law. The appellant is directed to furnish necessary submissions and evidences in support

CHAINARAM,JODHPUR. vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, he pleaded that the matter may be remanded back to the AO to pass de novo assessment after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. In support, he placed reliance on Judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of "Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India", [2022] 134 taxmann.com 187 (Delhi) where it was observed that

CHAINARAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, he pleaded that the matter may be remanded back to the AO to pass de novo assessment after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. In support, he placed reliance on Judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of "Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India", [2022] 134 taxmann.com 187 (Delhi) where it was observed that

CHAINARAM,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assesses in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Blechainaram V/P Doli Tehsil Luni, Jodhpur - 342001. Pan No Biкpr9270C Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement Ito, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur. Shri Anil Bhansali, Advocate. Shri Karni Dan, Addl. Cit (Sr. D.R.) 21.05.2025. 26.06.2025. 17

reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, he pleaded that the matter may be remanded back to the AO to pass de novo assessment after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. In support, he placed reliance on Judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of "Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India", [2022] 134 taxmann.com 187 (Delhi) where it was observed that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

justice and relief.” 3. The facts as culled out from the record are that the return of income for the A.Y 2014-15 was electronically furnished on 25.11.2014 declaring a total income of Rs. 75,62,630/-. The case was accordingly processed u/s 143(1) accepting the returned income. 4 Smt. Pushpa Chhajer Further the case was reopened u/s

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 148 of the Act which is not only against the principle of natural justice but also against the law settled by Hon'ble Courts in following cases: - i] In the case of ‘CIT Vs Smt Maniben Valji Shah’, 283 ITR 453 the Hon’ble Bombay High Court quashed assessment based on notice under section 148 of the Act where

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

u/s 148 of the Act which is not only against the principle of natural justice but also against the law settled by Hon'ble Courts in following cases: - i] In the case of ‘CIT Vs Smt Maniben Valji Shah’, 283 ITR 453 the Hon’ble Bombay High Court quashed assessment based on notice under section 148 of the Act where

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)

u/s 147 may kindly be declared as erroneous and void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition made by Ld. AO for Rs. 78,60,000/-treating the amount received towards subscription of share capital as unexplained cash credit. The addition so sustained

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)

u/s 147 may kindly be declared as erroneous and void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition made by Ld. AO for Rs. 78,60,000/-treating the amount received towards subscription of share capital as unexplained cash credit. The addition so sustained

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

147 of the Act, so, all are dealt hereunder together : 1.1 The ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the finding of assessing officer about validity of issuance of notice u/s 148 and service thereof upon the assessee. It is solely based on the findings of the assessing officer that Mr. Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of late Shri Vimal Chandra Jain, partner

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

147 of the Act, so, all are dealt hereunder together : 1.1 The ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the finding of assessing officer about validity of issuance of notice u/s 148 and service thereof upon the assessee. It is solely based on the findings of the assessing officer that Mr. Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of late Shri Vimal Chandra Jain, partner

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

147 of the Act, so, all are dealt hereunder together : 1.1 The ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the finding of assessing officer about validity of issuance of notice u/s 148 and service thereof upon the assessee. It is solely based on the findings of the assessing officer that Mr. Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of late Shri Vimal Chandra Jain, partner

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

147 of the Act, so, all are dealt hereunder together : 1.1 The ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the finding of assessing officer about validity of issuance of notice u/s 148 and service thereof upon the assessee. It is solely based on the findings of the assessing officer that Mr. Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of late Shri Vimal Chandra Jain, partner

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

147 of the Act, so, all are dealt hereunder together : 1.1 The ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the finding of assessing officer about validity of issuance of notice u/s 148 and service thereof upon the assessee. It is solely based on the findings of the assessing officer that Mr. Kanak Kumar Jain L/H of late Shri Vimal Chandra Jain, partner

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)

natural justice. 4 The appellant pray for suitable costs. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 26.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.17,78,470/-. The assessment was originally completed under section 143(3) on 29.12.2016 at Rs.25,28,470/-. 3.1 Subsequently, the case

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

reassessment or reopening of the assessment. The case is squarely covered by the above judgment. Therefore, to complete assessment on the basis of illegal notice is illegal and void. On the similar principals, the order of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunath Cotton Corp and M/s. SSSA Emerald Meadows, on the issue of penalty u/s