Del.) 277 48 CIT V/s Lake Palace Hotels & Motels. (2008) 321 ITR 165 9 48-49 (Raj.) 10 CIT v. Raja Narendra. (199r)

210 ITR 250High Court1994#23609 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 127 Section 139 Section 251 Section 106 Section 115BBE Section 118 Section 120 Section 122

Judgments citing Del.) 277 48 CIT V/s Lake Palace Hotels & Motels. (2008) 321 ITR 165 9 48-49 (Raj.) 10 CIT v. Raja Narendra. (199r)

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

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

ITA 740/JPR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2025

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 251Section 69B

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 750/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2021-22 cuke Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd. ACIT, Vs. K-14B Ashok Marg, C-Scheme, Central Circle-01, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCA 3277 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 740/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2021-22 cuke DCIT A…

Naina Saraf, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 271/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Cuke Naina Saraf, Pr.Cit-2, Vs. B-93, Surya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aevps 4665 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) holding that unless there is evidence that more consideration than what was stated in the document of transfer was received, the declared sale consideration was to be accepted. This has been followed in CIT v/s Raja Narendra (1994) 210 ITR 250 (Raj.) 7. Contradictory Approach: The approach of the ld. Pr. CIT appears to be contradictory and rather incomplete in as much as no addition of the alleged difference between the SDV and the declared purchase (sale) consideration, is reported in the hands of the Seller-Developer u/s 43CA which was also made applicable for A.Y. 2014-15 itself. A…

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &

Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…arwal (2012) 204 TAXMAN 16 (del.) 47-48 7 CIT V/s Smt. Suraj Devi (2010) 328 ITR 604 (Del.) 48 8 CIT V/s Smt. Nilofer I. Singh (2009) 221 CTR (Del.) 277 48 CIT V/s Lake Palace Hotels & Motels. (2008) 321 ITR 165 9 48-49 (Raj.) 10 CIT V/s Raja Narendra. (199r) 210 ITR 250 (Raj) 49 11 CIT V/s Naresh Khattar (HUF) (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Del) 49-50 12 CIT V/s Smt. Sushila Devi (2001) 256 ITR 179 (Del.) 50 DCIT V/s Jindal Equipments Leasing & Consultancy 13 50-51 Services Ltd. (2011) 131 ITD 263 (Del) 14 51-53 CIT V/s P.v. Kalyanasundaram, (2006) 282 ITR 259 (Mad.) 15 CIT V/s BhanwarLal Murawatiya (2008) 3 DTR 115 (Raj)…