FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

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

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

capital gain could not be set off from business loss as assessee has filed the return after due date prescribed under the Income Tax Act. 5) That the Commissioner Appeals has grossly erred in holding and sustaining the finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has shown business loss of 10,59,845/- in its computation of total income

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

gains arising from the transfer by way of conversion by the owner of a capital asset into, or its treatment by him as, stock-in-trade of a business carried on by him shall be chargeable to income-tax as his income of the previous year in which such stock-in-trade is sold or otherwise transferred

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation would mean only the superstructure and would not include the site. Under section 48 of the Act, the income chargeable under the head "Capital gains

HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciable asset it should have been subjected to short term capital gain. 3. In view of the above, it appears

GHODAWAT HOTELS PVT.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(HQ), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

capital gain. Therefore, the addition so made deserves to be deleted. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance of const./expenses of Rs. 1,01,97,208/- claimed u/s 48(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 arbitrarily, without appreciating the nature of expenses, incurred

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

capital gain of Rs. 65.00 crores, the assessee has entered into the bogus transactions. Even the transaction of sale of commercial space in Prestige Mall was not found to be bogus either by the Investigation Wing or alleged by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded but the only allegation was that ITA 464 & 761/JP/2018_ 32 M/s Angel Infrastructure

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

capital gain of Rs. 65.00 crores, the assessee has entered into the bogus transactions. Even the transaction of sale of commercial space in Prestige Mall was not found to be bogus either by the Investigation Wing or alleged by the Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded but the only allegation was that ITA 464 & 761/JP/2018_ 32 M/s Angel Infrastructure

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 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-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

Capital gain chargeable to Tax 6239484 Assessee submits with reference to the proposition and show cause notice is the only limitation on his powers is that he must have some material(s) which would enable him to form a prima facie opinion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains. In the present case, reopening under section 147 has been done\nwithout linking information received from Investigation Wing of Department to actual facts in\nthe appellant's case.\n\n2. Legal position in this regard-\n\n2.1 In this regard, provisions of section 147 are reproduced hereunder for your ready reference-\n\n\"If the Assessing Officer

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

gains—Held, there is not an iota of any cogent material mentioned by Assessing Officer which enabled him to have reached conclusion that this case was a fit case for conversion from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny—If proposal of Assessing Officer and approval of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax are examined on anvil of paragraph 3 of CBDT Instruction

KARUNA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 2(1), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

gain of Rs. 66, 94,676/- on account of subscribing the IPO of M/s. HPC Bio Sciences Ltd. and consequently, sale of the same. Of late, Searches have been conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Department at various places throughout the country. During the searches & as per the information made public by the SEBI, it is discovered that various

RAM KHILARI MEENA,DAUSA vs. ITO, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

capital Gain on sale of land and building ignoring the vital fact that no addition had been made on the reason framed for reopening of the case of the appellant. The case of the appellant was reopened on the reasoning of cash deposits in the bank account during the relevant previous year and non filing of TR by the appellant

ITO, JAIPUR vs. RAVI SANCHETI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Capital gain”, thus it can be at the most “Difference of Opinion” and it is trite law that no penalty can be levied merely on account of difference of opinion. In this regard, reliance is place on The Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. [2008] 170 Taxman 27 holding that no penalty be levied with reference

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)

depreciation, interest to partners & remuneration was negative (-) 1,09,19,607/-. This loss was despite crediting a sum to the P&L a/c for sale receipts of land Rs. 2,48,36,735/- on account of excluding which as long term capital gains

ITO, ALWAR vs. KUNDAN LAL BADSHAH, ALWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is disposed off with above directions

gain derived by the firm. (4) Such distribution should be on dissolution of the firm or otherwise.” “5.20 In the instant case, the partner had purchased the property under a registered sale deed in his name and the property was subsequently transferred in the firm as his capital contribution. The other partner brought in cash by way of capital when

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Capital Gain” (Deemed total income u/s. 115JB is Rs. 4,84,39,49,080/-). The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following flagged issues:- Sr. No. Issues i. Stock valuation ii. Income/Capital Gain on sale of land or building iii. Outward Foreign Remittance iv. Depreciation

SHRI SANJAY JINDAL,NASIRABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Depreciated Asset A/c on record. 2. That, without prejudice to Ground 1 & 3, the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer has erred in computing the taxable Capital Gain

M/S JINDAL ROADWAYS PVT. LTD.,NASIRABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Depreciated Asset A/c on record. 2. That, without prejudice to Ground 1 & 3, the ld. CIT(A), Ajmer has erred in computing the taxable Capital Gain