SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

1 and upholding the action of the ld. AO in completing the\nassessment u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of ld. CIT (A) is illegal,\nunjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by\nquashing the entire assessment order which is passed in gross violation of natural justice

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

purchase and sales, and it is after examining the case thoroughly that assessment was completed on returned income. (B) Proceeding under section 148A/148 In this case the learned AO issued notice under section 148 after issuing notice under section 148A(b) and passing order under section 148 A(d). Notice under section 148 has been issued on 29.03.2022. Copies

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

50C(1) of the LT. Act. 1961, arbitrarily, thus the value so adopted deserves to be hold bad in law. Ground No. 4: On facts and in circumstances of the matter, the Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs. 3,68,874/- u/s 69 on account of alleged investment in property, arbitrarily. Thus the addition so made deserve

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

bogus\nentities-Tribunal allowed assessee's appeal on merits—Revenue appealed against appellate\norder on merits—Assessee's cross appeal was on correctness of reopening of assessment—\nTribunal upheld assessee's cross-objections and dismissed Revenue's appeal holding that there\nwas no proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority u/s Section 151 as a pre-\ncondition for issuing

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C were made effective, i.e. 1-4-2003 - Held, yes [Paras 7, 8 and 9 ]\n[In favour of assessee]\nIn view of above, it is submitted that legislature itself provides that variation of\nupto 10% in the stamp duty value of property vis a vis actual consideration is\npermissible, whereas in the instant case difference is 8.66%, i.e. below

SUNIL KUMAR TIWARI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.

1), the value so adopted or assessed by such authority shall be taken as the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer.]” A bare reading of the above provision makes it clear that as per Section 50C(2)(a) of the Act, the assessee has to make a claim before the Assessing Officer

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC-2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

50C(1) of the LT. Act. 1961, arbitrarily, thus the value so adopted deserves to be hold bad in law. Ground No. 4: On facts and in circumstances of the matter, the Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- u/s 68 by treating the loan taken from M/s. Gemini Commerce Pvt. Ltd. as accommodation entry arbitrarily

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR , LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

50C(1) of the LT. Act. 1961, arbitrarily, thus the value so adopted deserves to be hold bad in law. Ground No. 4: On facts and in circumstances of the matter, the Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- u/s 68 by treating the loan taken from M/s. Gemini Commerce Pvt. Ltd. as accommodation entry arbitrarily

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

50C(1) of the LT. Act. 1961, arbitrarily, thus the value so adopted deserves to be hold bad in law. Ground No. 4: On facts and in circumstances of the matter, the Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- u/s 68 by treating the loan taken from M/s. Gemini Commerce Pvt. Ltd. as accommodation entry arbitrarily

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

bogus share capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

purchase and sale and creating artificial ITA 464 & 761/JP/2018_ 53 M/s Angel Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs DCIT short term capital loss was a preconceived design to avoid tax liability on the capital gain arising from sale of shares as well as other income. The assessee instead of transferring the shares to the group concern without any consideration would have requested

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

purchase and sale and creating artificial ITA 464 & 761/JP/2018_ 53 M/s Angel Infrastructure P Ltd. Vs DCIT short term capital loss was a preconceived design to avoid tax liability on the capital gain arising from sale of shares as well as other income. The assessee instead of transferring the shares to the group concern without any consideration would have requested