INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR vs. RAJ KUMAR NOWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital, etc. and not to sums already offered to tax as income by the assessee in its return of income at the highest slab rate. Such recourse is unwarranted keeping in mind the objective to introduce section 115BBE of the Act was only to curb the practice of laundering of unaccounted money by taking advantage of the basic exemption limit

PAWAN MEENA,PLOT NO.91 vs. ITO, WD2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital for the purpose of conducting business. Hence, in the facts of this case a legitimate inference can be drawn that the assessee had income which he had deposited in Bank accounts and, as such, that income was subject to tax. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal Vs CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 while affirming

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

capital gain has accrued to the assessee. CIT (A) further held that funds received by the assessee is unaccounted income of the assessee and chargeable to tax u/s 68 of the act. On the matrix as held by the Honorable Delhi high court the above issue falls within the scope of the provision of section

SH. SANJAY GODHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Said Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Arises Because The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before Him Against The Order Dated 20/11/2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, By Acit, Circle-01, Jaipur.

cash was withdrawn, it was again re-deposited in the bank account during the year under consideration. In this regard, it is noted that the assessee in her return of income for A.Y 2016-17 has disclosed sale consideration on sale of plot of land for Rs 1,31,45,200/- and offered capital gains

ANSHU SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

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

capital gains. At the same time, she invested in the commercial complex and let out the space to L & T Ltd. for earning regular rental income. During the AY 2013-14, she withdrew the cash from her bank accounts with the Federal Bank Ltd, Jaipur to the tune of Rs. 1,41,41,000/- and after depositing

SHRI HARSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Cash deposited during demonetization, thus\nthis issue was outside the purview of Scrutiny.\nHowever, without prejudice to above, it is submitted that gold jewellery as\ndiscussed by Id.AO was held as “Investments” and not as “Stock in Trade”,\ntherefore sale thereof was shown under the head “Capital Gains

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains,\netc., which would involve reporting of accounts maintained on an elaborate basis and also detailing expendi-\nture, etc., the Assessing Officer may have the discretion to reject accounts and arrive at the income on the ba-\nsis of estimation. However, in the case of section 68, there cannot be any estimate even if for the rest

SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , 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. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

Capital Gain Rs. 5,75,691.00 (by disallowing deduction u/s 54F) Cash deposits in bank account alleged Rs.11,38,750.00 3 ITA 49/JP/2018_

SUSHILA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

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

deposited in cash during financial year 2012-13, has not\nexplained as to how they proposed to reopen the assessment on\nthe allegation that a sum of Rs.3,73,72,707 chargeable to tax\nhas escaped assessment. It clearly shows that neither there was\nany independent application of mind by the AO while recording\nreasons nor application of mind

AKSHAT LOYALKA,JAIPUR vs. RJN-C-(101)(1), JAIPUR

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

deposit.\nThe assessee's books of account are not audited and the cash book s not acceptable.\nSecondly the assessee is not required to maintain to cash book.\nThe assessee is a man of high Net worth and allocation of Rs.20,000/- per month only\ntowards house hold expenditure is not justifiable. He is partner in three firms namely\nNoble

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAVINDRA MITTAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 823/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2012-13 D.C.I.T., Cuke Shri Ravindra Mittal, Vs. Circle-6, 804, Akshat Niley Apartment, Jaipur. Hawa Sarak, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aexpm 9057 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

deposit from the Developer. The ld. AR has also submitted that provisions of section 45(5A) inserted by Finance Act, 2017 wherein gain arising to an individual or HUF from the transfer of a capital asset being a land or building or both under a specified agreement is chargeable to tax as Capital Gains. The "specified agreement' referred

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

capital on hand. The Income-tax Officer 20 Jitendra Kumar TahilramanI vs. ITO further took into consideration the circumstances that Nawgachia and Dhulian were very important business centres and Sahibganj the principal place of business had gained sufficient notoriety for smuggling foodgrains and other commodities to Bengal by country boats. Dhulian which was just on the Bengal-Behar border

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

cash book, copies of share\n17\nITA NO.704/JPR/2024\nSHRI BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY VS ITO, WARD 3(1), JAIPUR\ncertificate, de-mat statement etc. were false, fabricated or fictitious. The appellate\nauthorities have rightly observed that the facts as noticed by the AO, like the\nnotice u/s 136 to the company having been returned unserved; delayed payment\nto the brokers

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

deposited cash of\nRs.6,07,900/- time to time vide PB21,24,27,42,49,55,56,57 and this\nfact have not been disputed by the Id. AO because he was having the\nbank statements and cash book.\nThus when the very reasons are wrong or incorrect then all the\nproceedings are invalid.\n1.2 Hence when the very basis

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

Gain Account Scheme, the Appellant in order to rectify the procedural mistake en-cashed the FDR deposited with ICICI bank and deposited such amount into Capital

SHOBNA AGARWAL,AJMER ROAD JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2 , JAIPUR

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

deposit into Bank Account out of earlier cash withdrawals from the Bank. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also Ld. Lower authorities grossly erred in invoking provision of section 115BBE of the income Tax Act, 1961 as it was her income from business. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

deposits maintained with banks and declared income of Rs.34,119/- under the head Income from other sources' and also declared Short term capital gain on 31,565/- earned on sale of mutual funds. The assessee has further claimed deduction under chapter VI-A of the Act to the extent of Rs.2,40,698/- thereby declaring net taxable income

BHAWANI SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(1), JPR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

gained in any manner whatsoever, by not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. It is also worth noticing that delay was also not that huge, which could not have been condoned, without putting the 6 Bhawani Singh vs. ITO respondents to harm or prejudice. It is the duty of the Court to see to it that justice should