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 proceeding without obtaining proper satisfaction and sanction from the superior authority U/s 151 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Without prejudice to above, Sir, it is submitted that in number of cases the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax given approval in a mechanical way, without application of mind. Here it is imperative to reproduce provisions

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. 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

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. 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

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)

147 rws 144B as the assessment order was not passed u/s 144. Hence the order of the ld. CIT(A) are bad in law, invalid, illegal and on facts of the case, for and various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 3.1 Rs. 75,00,000/-: The ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well

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

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

23,000/- by making an addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act and disallowance of interest for an amount of Rs. 3,16,663/-. 5. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the assessing officer assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised the relevant finding

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

23,000/- by making an addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act and disallowance of interest for an amount of Rs. 3,16,663/-. 5. Feeling dissatisfied from the order of the assessing officer assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised the relevant finding

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

23,401 u/s 194C). Accordingly, a notice under section 148 dated 08.03.2018 was issued in the name of non-existent firm and not properly served thereon. The said reassessment proceeding was based on ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur report issued after survey u/s 133A on dated 03.12.2016. The assessing officer without rejecting an objection for issuance of notice under section

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

23,401 u/s 194C). Accordingly, a notice under section 148 dated 08.03.2018 was issued in the name of non-existent firm and not properly served thereon. The said reassessment proceeding was based on ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur report issued after survey u/s 133A on dated 03.12.2016. The assessing officer without rejecting an objection for issuance of notice under section

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

23,401 u/s 194C). Accordingly, a notice under section 148 dated 08.03.2018 was issued in the name of non-existent firm and not properly served thereon. The said reassessment proceeding was based on ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur report issued after survey u/s 133A on dated 03.12.2016. The assessing officer without rejecting an objection for issuance of notice under section

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

23,401 u/s 194C). Accordingly, a notice under section 148 dated 08.03.2018 was issued in the name of non-existent firm and not properly served thereon. The said reassessment proceeding was based on ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur report issued after survey u/s 133A on dated 03.12.2016. The assessing officer without rejecting an objection for issuance of notice under section

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

23,401 u/s 194C). Accordingly, a notice under section 148 dated 08.03.2018 was issued in the name of non-existent firm and not properly served thereon. The said reassessment proceeding was based on ADIT (Inv.)-II, Udaipur report issued after survey u/s 133A on dated 03.12.2016. The assessing officer without rejecting an objection for issuance of notice under section

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

reassessment proceedings carried out u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act and taking the basis of statement given by the assessee during the course of survey carried out on 23