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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

bogus sales or purchases on account of\nrevenue account. As per the record and the reasons recorded, no enquiries have\nbeen conducted by the Assessing Officer to come to a conclusion or reasons to\nbelief with regard to evasion of tax which has escaped assessment.\n10. Placing reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional Delhi High Court

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

bogus gifts. \nThe Hon'ble Finance Minister has made this intention clear by referring to the Gift \ntax Act, 1958, and by adding exception for gift received from relatives on the \noccasion of marriage etc. It is also noteworthy that like gift tax, the basic \nexemption limit has also been prescribed in the section and various exceptions \nprovided in section

SARASWATI DEVI,AROGYA NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CAD CIRCLE KOTA

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

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

Section 50C. The onus lies on the appellant to support any claim by bringing in cogent documentary evidence but the appellant has not even filed a written submission in support of its grounds of appeal despite several opportunities given as details in the preceding paras. In view of the above, I find that the action

M/S DEEPS SPECIAL STEELS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 50C were not attracted in the case of lease hold property, and the assessee was found to have taken said land on lease of 99 years, and as such, it was not a capital asset. Sale of shares of KAPPAC PHARMA 9. Coming to the only issue of sale of KAPPAC Pharma, argued before us, during the year under

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him.

purchase. This is not a standard or common practice of the jewellery industry. Also it is seen that the number of items such numericals are not mentioned. The details in the software have never been submitted before the Department in earlier years. Such details as available in the software are not available for the earlier years. There is no linkage