KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment or re-computation under section 147. Unless, the notice was served on the proper person in the manner prescribed under section 282, the service was insufficient and AO did not have jurisdiction to re-assess the escaped income. Thus, the service of notice under section 148 was no service in the eye of law and all subsequent proceedings including

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

reassessment or re-computation under section 147. Unless, the notice was served on the proper person in the manner prescribed under section 282, the service was insufficient and AO did not have jurisdiction to re-assess the escaped income. Thus, the service of notice under section 148 was no service in the eye of law and all subsequent proceedings including

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the present case has been levied on the basis that the Appellant has not shown the long term capital gain while filing the "Original return of income". 4.3. The Appellant at this juncture, the Appellant would like to draw your attention towards the provisions of S.148 of the Act, which

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

271(1)(c) Assessing Officer alleged that assessee had concealed its income, orders imposing penalty were invalid and liable to be cancelled. [In favor of assessee] 8 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 8 In view of the above facts and judicial decisions, the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) may kindly

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Reassessment – Service of notice – Primary email id – Notice\nissued on the secondary notice\nService of the notice is not valid\n147, 282, Rule 127, Art. 226]\nFailure to participate in the proceedings\nReassessment was quashed. [S. 144, 144B,\n1.4The ITAT, Pune Bench, in the case of York Transport Equipment (India) Pvt. Ltd.\nvs. ITO in ITA No.125/PUN/2024, has held that