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

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 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

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

2,21,60,400/- as against Rs.12,45,390/- originally returned by\nassessee. Assessee contended that no notice under section 148 was served upon assessee and ex-\nparte assessment was completed without serving any notice under section 148 till the completion\nof assessment which rendered the assessment order to be held void-ab-initio. It was held a valid\nservice

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

2, for Income-tax Officer\" (w.e.f.\n1.4.1988).] or the [* * *] [ Certain words omitted by Act 21 of 1998, Section 65 (w.e.f.\n1.10.1998).] [Commissioner (Appeals)] [ Inserted by Act 29 of 1977, Section 29 (w.e.f.\n10.7.1978).] in the course of any proceeding under this Act in respect of any such firm as\nis referred to in that sub-section is satisfied that

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

2) The Respondent\n(3) The CIT\n(4) The CIT (Appeals)\nSd/-\n(DR. S. Seethalakshmi)\nJudicial Member", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, L/H of a partner of a dissolved partnership firm (M/s. Keshariyaji Filling Station), filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s order upholding reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147. The firm ceased to exist before the notice u/s

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

2, for Income-tax Officer\" (w.e.f.\n1.4.1988).] or the [* * *] [ Certain words omitted by Act 21 of 1998, Section 65 (w.e.f.\n1.10.1998).] [Commissioner (Appeals)] [ Inserted by Act 29 of 1977, Section 29 (w.e.f.\n10.7.1978).] in the course of any proceeding under this Act in respect of any such firm as\nis referred to in that sub-section is satisfied that

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

2, for Income-tax Officer\" (w.e.f.\n1.4.1988).] or the [* * *] [ Certain words omitted by Act 21 of 1998, Section 65 (w.e.f.\n1.10.1998).] [Commissioner (Appeals)] [ Inserted by Act 29 of 1977, Section 29 (w.e.f.\n10.7.1978).] in the course of any proceeding under this Act in respect of any such firm as\nis referred to in that sub-section is satisfied that

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

2, for Income-tax Officer\" (w.e.f.\n1.4.1988).] or the [* * *] [ Certain words omitted by Act 21 of 1998, Section 65 (w.e.f.\n1.10.1998).] [Commissioner (Appeals)] [ Inserted by Act 29 of 1977, Section 29 (w.e.f.\n10.7.1978).] in the course of any proceeding under this Act in respect of any such firm as\nis referred to in that sub-section is satisfied that

PARASMAL SAREMAL GOGAD,PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section\n263 was to be affirmed.\n[The Supreme Court has dismissed the special leave petition filed\nby the Department against this judgment: see [2018] 407 ITR\n(St.)25-Ed]\n13. In the present case, it is evident that the issues, raised by the Ld. PCIT\nvide above referred notice u/s 263 were duly examined

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.”

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 proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act. The objections of the assessee were duly disposed off by the AO vide

LALIT JOHARI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad40/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2014-15) Vs The Acit Shri Lalit Johri 65-A, Bank Colony, Rai Central Circle-2 Ka Bagh, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agfpj 5542 H

147, section 148, section 1549, section 151 and section 153 in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall – (a) Issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within

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

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 facts

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 u/s 148 is without any belief of escapement and on surmise and therefore assessment framed on such belief liable to be quashed. Assessment so framed may kindly be declared void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed

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 u/s 148 is without any belief of escapement and on surmise and therefore assessment framed on such belief liable to be quashed. Assessment so framed may kindly be declared void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed

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 u/s 148 is without any belief of escapement and on surmise and therefore assessment framed on such belief liable to be quashed. Assessment so framed may kindly be declared void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed

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 u/s 148 is without any belief of escapement and on surmise and therefore assessment framed on such belief liable to be quashed. Assessment so framed may kindly be declared void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed

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 u/s 148 is without any belief of escapement and on surmise and therefore assessment framed on such belief liable to be quashed. Assessment so framed may kindly be declared void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order framed

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 u/s 148 is without any belief of escapement and on surmise and therefore assessment framed on such belief liable to be quashed. Assessment so framed may kindly be declared void ab initio. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) 1, Jodhpur erred in sustaining the assessment order 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)

section 147 and 151 and accordingly notice u/s 148 was issued to assessee— Proceedings u/s 147/148 were initiated after recording reasons on basis of information received from Investigation Wing of Department on basis of search and seizure operation. During course of assessment proceedings, assessee was specifically asked to explain and justify transaction with G received as share application money/share capital