ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Term Capital Gain of Rs.3,78,74,469/- (PB5). 2. In the first round, the case was selected for scrutiny supposedly, on the issue of examination of LTCG. Notices u/s 143(2) dt.18.09.2015 and thereafter notice u/s 142(1) were issued time to time which were duly replied and assessment was completed vide order

SMT. VANITA TEKRIWAL,FLAT NO.715, SUN N MOON BELVEDERE PARK, SWAGE FARM CIRCLE, NEW SANGANER ROAD, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

long term capital gain on sales of shares of RSBPL against which exemption u/s 54F of Rs.37,78,270/- is claimed (PB 4-6). In support of this fact the assessee has filed the affidavit (PB 59). However, inspite of all these facts available on record, the AO has solely relied on the system generated return which contains number

AJAY AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. CIT (IT), DELHI-1, CIT(IT) DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Long Term Capital Gain. 2.6 During the course of the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3), the assessee filed various documents to verify the calculation of Capital gain. Proofs of Purchase, payment of instalments, TDS

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

TDS DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED @ 1% U/S 194IA TOTAL 10822354/- 962681/- 11785035/- 1.6 Ld. CIT(A) and Assessing Officer ignored the genuine difficulties of the assessee and, held that assessee has failed in depositing the unused amount by 31/07/2016 in `Capital Gains Account Scheme’ 13 Indira Giri vs. ITO (CGAS) and considered the payment of Rs. 28 Lacs only as eligible

PRAMOD KASLIWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD. 6(2) , BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

Long term Capital Gains declared before claiming deduction u/s 54 of ITA 5. Further the reference of date of 22.06.2008 which was the date of demise of Mother is again misconceived since the asset was received in family partition and/or Will of father who died on 12.08.1987 which land he ( Late Pramod Kasliwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur Father) acquired

PRAMOD KASLIWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD. 6(2) , NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR 302005

Appeals of the assessee are allowed statistically

Bench: Ld. Cit/Nfac.

Long term Capital Gains declared before claiming deduction u/s 54 of ITA 5. Further the reference of date of 22.06.2008 which was the date of demise of Mother is again misconceived since the asset was received in family partition and/or Will of father who died on 12.08.1987 which land he ( Late Pramod Kasliwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur Father) acquired

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S HANUMAN TUBE WELL CO., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

capital gains, the loss increases to Rs. 3,57,56,342/- The A.O, issued a notice proposing rejection of the books of accounts, highlighting discrepancies like- -non maintenance of stock register; -no day to day quantity details; -some discrepancies pointed out in the Audit report related to debtors & creditors etc. -claim of depreciation on 'Mata Sukh' project but no income

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

long term capital gain on sale of “UTI Transportation and Logistics Fund under section 10(38), and by investment of Rs 1,99,000/- which was made from owned funds as assessee was having availability of ample of owned funds. So, no borrowing cost has been incurred towards purchase of this UTI TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS FUND and other investments which

PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Long Term Capital Gain. Although the assessment order has been passed ex-parte, even then the Learned Assessing Officer was not supposed to act arbitrarily. The facts in his possession regarding the sale of immovable property 11 Prakash Sharma vs. ITO should have been disclosed to the assessee, which was not done. The assessee humbly reiterates that no immovable property

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

long term capital gain is computed at Rs.7,43,837/- and the\nsame was brought to tax.\n4.2.2During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant filed copy of purchase deed\ndated 12.05.2011 towards purchase of immovable property which is sold by the appellant\nduring the relevant previous year for total sale consideration of Rs.85,00,000/-. On perusal\nof this

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

TDS provisions have not been complied properly. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for claiming exemption under section 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was also submitted by the ld CIT-DR that in view of above findings, the activities of the assessee Trust falls under the purview of Section 12AA