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

C of Indian Partnership Act hence, no assessment\ncan be made on it in so far as per catena of various decision of different High Court\nand Apex Court are concerned. The ld. CIT (A) further failed to appreciate that no\nvalid notice served on appellant as no notice can be issued in name of dead\nperson/non existing entity. Hence

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

C of Indian Partnership Act hence, no assessment\ncan be made on it in so far as per catena of various decision of different High Court\nand Apex Court are concerned. The ld. CIT (A) further failed to appreciate that no\nvalid notice served on appellant as no notice can be issued in name of dead\nperson/non existing entity. Hence

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

C of Indian Partnership Act hence, no assessment\ncan be made on it in so far as per catena of various decision of different High Court\nand Apex Court are concerned. The ld. CIT (A) further failed to appreciate that no\nvalid notice served on appellant as no notice can be issued in name of dead\nperson/non existing entity. Hence

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

C of Indian Partnership Act hence, no assessment\ncan be made on it in so far as per catena of various decision of different High Court\nand Apex Court are concerned. The ld. CIT (A) further failed to appreciate that no\nvalid notice served on appellant as no notice can be issued in name of dead\nperson/non existing entity. Hence

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

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

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.”

reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act. The objections of the assessee were duly disposed off by the AO vide his letter dated 15.12.2016.Thereafter, the AO issued show cause notice asking the assessee to show cause as to why the undisclosed GP of Rs. 47,79,046/- should not be treated as income from undisclosed sources vide letter

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)

C. Cables Ltd.(2017) 6 Dawoodi Bohra Jamat, Udaipur. 98 CCH 0010 DelHC it has been held that Section 151 of the Act clearly stipulates that the CIT, who is the competent authority to authorize the reassessment notice, has to apply his mind and form an opinion. The mere appending of the expression ‘approved’ says nothing

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

1,88,25,960/-. The case was re-opened, by way of notice issued u/s 148 to the assessee on 26.10.2015. However, the Assessing Officer (in 3 Preeti Singhvi v. ACIT short “the AO”) that the appellant assessee was expired on 18.03.2015, he has dropped the said reassessment proceedings against the deceased persons, namely late Smt. Preeti Singhvi. Subsequently

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

c) & (e), the CIT has been empowered to take an\nappropriate action under section 263 of the Act In category of case falling under\nclause (d) and (f), appropriate action under section 147 of the Act can be taken to\ntax the income which has escaped assessment or had remained to be taxed. There\ncan be situation where an item

OCHHAB LAL JAIN,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

c) & (e), the CIT has been empowered to take an\nappropriate action under section 263 of the Act In category of case falling under\nclause (d) and (f), appropriate action under section 147 of the Act can be taken to\ntax the income which has escaped assessment or had remained to be taxed. There\ncan be situation where an item

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

6. As the assessee has not received any relief from the order of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as raised here in above. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed their written submission which is extracted here in below; 1] As regards ground

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

6. As the assessee has not received any relief from the order of the ld. CIT(A). The assessee has preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as raised here in above. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has placed their written submission which is extracted here in below; 1] As regards ground

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

C.A. Revenue By Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT-DR Date of hearing 05/07/2023 Date of Pronouncement 03/10/2023 O R D E R PER: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, JM The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Udiapur [herein after “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 22.02.2019 for the assessment year