PRATIMA PANWAR,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O, WARD 3(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

demonetization period. During assessment proceedings as well as appeal proceedings, the assessee has stated that the source of cash is sale of agricultural land in A.Y. 2008-09 for a consideration of Rs.72,11,000/- on which the assessee has paid Capital Gains

ARVIND KUMAR NEHRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital gains—Held, there is\nnot an iota of any cogent material mentioned by Assessing Officer which enabled him to\nhave reached conclusion that this case was a fit case for conversion from limited scrutiny\nto complete scrutiny—If proposal of Assessing Officer and approval of Pr. Commissioner\nof Income Tax are examined on anvil of paragraph 3 of CBDT

RAJENDRA KUMAR MEENA,GANGAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2 SAWAMADHOPUR, GANGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital 11 Rajendra Kumar Meena vs. ITO gain or u/s 48, 56 or u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made without any provision of is also against the law and liable to be deleted on this ground alone. When the ld. AO has not invoked any provision of law then also how the ld.AO can make the addition

BRIJENDRA GARG,BHIWADI vs. ITO WARD BHIWADI, BHIWADI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order is to cost

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

capital gain/ loss. It is also pertinent to mention that nothing has been placed on record by the revenue authorities to demonstrate that there was live link between the assessee and M/S DMC Education Ltd and it is not the case of the revenue or the allegations that assessee's name was pointed out by any of the directors

ANAND JHAWAR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

demonetization period, difference of Sundry creditors of Rs. 3,94,22,340/- in respect of preceding assessment year 2016-17 and investment of Rs.8,00,00,000/- in respect of short term capital gain

DINESH KUMAR SONI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains, etc, which would involve reporting of accounts maintained on an elaborate basis and also detailing expenditure etc, the Assessing officer may have the discretion to reject accounts and arrive at the 18 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Soni vs. DCIT income on the basis of estimation. However, in the case of section 68, there cannot be any estimate even

KAMAL DEWAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), JAIPUR

capital gains to tax-Sale\nconsideration equivalent to stamp duty value has been duly disclosed by assessee and there is no\nfinding that assessee has received any amount over and above declared sale consideration—\nTherefore, given that sale consideration has been received directly in assessee's bank account, source of cash withdrawals in earlier two years has been clearly demonstrated

SHRI HARSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

demonetization and by doing so AO exceeded the limit. Held:Allowed the relief to that extent. Conclusion:- ITAT did not permit AO to go beyond the direction despite the fact that the entries of cash depositsreflected in the same bank statement. 17 ITA No. 902./JPR/2024 Suchita Bhatia vs. DCIT. b) Urban Improvement

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

capital gain, business or profession. 2.2 A combined reading of S. 14 with S. 56 of the Act makes is evidently clear that for the assessment of an income it must have to be classified under four heads of income as enumerated u/s 14 and if it doesn’t fall under any specific head of income as per item

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

capital gains etc. II. Search and seizure operation, under section 132(1), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) was carried out on 21.07.2016at the business and residential premises of the assessee.(AO Order Page 1) III. For the relevant previous year, assessee furnished his return of income on 31.10.2017, declaring total income

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

capital gains etc. II. Search and seizure operation, under section 132(1), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) was carried out on 21.07.2016at the business and residential premises of the assessee.(AO Order Page 1) III. For the relevant previous year, assessee furnished his return of income on 31.10.2017, declaring total income

VIJIT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain or u/s 48,\n56 or u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made without any provision of act is\nalso against the law and liable to be deleted on this ground alone. When the ld.\nAO has not invoked any provision of Act/law then also how the ld.AO can\nmake the addition. When

SHEETAL BATHLA,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain or u/s 48, 56 or u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made 11 Sheetal Bathla, Jaipur. without any provision of act is also against the law and liable to be deleted on this ground alone. When the ld. AO has not invoked any provision of Act/law then also how the ld.AO can make the addition. When

NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital on hand. The Income-\ntax Officer further took into consideration the circumstances that Nawgachia\nand Dhulian were very important business centres and Sahibganj the principal\nplace of business had gained sufficient notoriety for smuggling foodgrains and\nother commodities to Bengal by country boats. Dhulian which was just on the\nBengal-Behar border was also reported to be a great

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

demonetization, not only the SBN Notes but almost\nan equal amount of regular/valid currency notes were deposited.\n(d) That in the subsequent months, regular cash has been deposited. In March,\n2017 total cash of Rs.4,44,47,250/- was deposited.\n2. Here it is important to note the findings of Ld.CIT(A) made at Page-7, Para\n9.1

INDER KUMAR NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD,1 (1), JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

gain on the amount received, for which the immunity is granted for further investigation. However, in the present case, the borrowers of the money lent, who repay the money back do not generate any income arising out of the said transaction. Hence, the appellant drawing corollary on this issue is incorrect. 6.7. Further, in the scheme of IDS, the immunity

SACHIN BHANDARI,JAIPUR vs. ITD WD 6(4), JPR, JAIPUR

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

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

capital gain and income from other sources. During the year under consideration, the assessee deposited the cash of Rs. 10,46,400/- as per ITS details generated from the systems. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year under consideration, various notices / letters were issued from time to time. The assessee was required to submit the information / documents for verification