OMPRAKASH,DHOLPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n17/01/2025

capital gain.\n3. That order of learned Assessing Authority is based on assumptions and presumptions and\nagainst real facts of the case.\n4. That learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in making penalty

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain 15,72,409/- 58-62 Offered in IDS At this juncture, reliance is placed on decision of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Killick Nixon Ltd., Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, wherein it has been held as under: “As far as the provisions of KVSS are concerned, we agree with the contention

CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

Capital Gain and is being disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee treating the same as income from other sources. Since assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income separately it is a fit case for initiating penalty

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

capital gain at Rs.6,19,338/- has been disclosed, Accordingly, the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the I.T. Act, 1961 was completed on 3 Sh. Bittal Das Parwal vs. ACIT 29.12.2017 and income was assessed at Rs.6.18,74,055/- by making the following additions and also penalty

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain during the year under consideration but the same was not disclosed by the assessee in its return of income, therefore, the same is hereby added to the total income of the assessee. The penalty

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain during the year under consideration but the same was not disclosed by the assessee in its return of income, therefore, the same is hereby added to the total income of the assessee. The penalty

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain during the year under consideration but the same was not disclosed by the assessee in its return of income, therefore, the same is hereby added to the total income of the assessee. The penalty

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain during the year under consideration but the same was not disclosed by the assessee in its return of income, therefore, the same is hereby added to the total income of the assessee. The penalty

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

capital of EEL within the time specified therefor and thereby has violated regulation 7(1) read with regulation 7(2) of SAST Regulations, 1997.\n(b)\nDoes the non-compliance, if any, attract monetary penalty under\nsection 15A(b) of SEBI Act?\n11. By not making the disclosures on time, the Noticee failed to comply with its statutory obligation

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

penalty has been levied in respect of the deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act was denied to the assessee and consequently thereto the income of long term capital gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are also initiated against the assessee since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction on account of interest paid on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.” o13 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are also initiated against the assessee since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction on account of interest paid on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.” o13 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are also initiated against the assessee since I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming wrong deduction on account of interest paid on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.” o13 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

Capital Gain of Rs.3,78,74,469/- (PB5). 2. In the first round, the case was selected for scrutiny supposedly, on the issue of examination of LTCG. Notices u/s 143(2) dt.18.09.2015 and thereafter notice u/s 142(1) were issued time to time which were duly replied and assessment was completed vide order

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

penalty proceedings\nu/s 271(1)(c) against the assessee for concealing the particulars of income\nand for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.\n4.2 The assessee being aggrieved with the order of AO preferred an\nappeal before Id. CIT (A) who partly allowed the appeal vide its order dated\n17.08.2023 by accepting the Ground No. 2. The relevant para (Para

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

Capital Gain neither in A.Y. 2007-\n08 nor A.Y. 2011-12. The case law relied upon by the assessee is not applicable\nin assessee's case as the case was rightly re-opened on the basis of information\nreceived from Sub-Registrar, Bhiwadi wherein the assessee had been shown as\npurchaser and the assessee remained non-compliant during entire assessment

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

penalty should not be imposed. In the instant case, the assessee had shown "long-term capital gain and claimed exemption

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)

capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' Held, yes. [Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2002] 120 Taxman 11 (Gujarat)/[2001] 247 ITR 290 (Gujarat)/[2001] 165 CTR 111 (Gujarat) [10-08-2000]] These are the special provisions dealing with the situation and the incomes which are the subject matter of the contention