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 loss was a preconceived design to avoid tax liability on the capital gain arising from sale of shares as well as other income. The assessee instead of transferring the shares to the group concern without any consideration would have requested for extension of time for making the payment of final call money of Rs. 9.90 crores as all these

RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

capital loss on account of trading in securities. The Ld. A.O also allegedly issued two show cause notices for imposing penalty under Section 271B (Paper Book Page 15 & Pages 16-17). However, one of the show cause notice allegedly dated 20.12.2019 was not uploaded on portal and was also not served in hard copy. The copy of screenshot of portal

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering both the parties has upheld reopening of assessment U/s 147, on merits the ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs. 1,13,23,461/- by holding that the transaction is a transfer within the meaning

SHRI RADHA GOVIND LASHKARI,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

12 Shri Radha Govind Lashkari, Jaipur. for limited scrutiny under CASS—Case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for reason that there is substantial increase in capital in relevant year and AO passed assessment order and accepted return filed by assessee after examining issue regarding increase in capital account as assessee had credited his capital account with

MANJEET SINGH DUGGAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, ground of assessee’s appeal is dismissed

capital gain”. 6. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has allowed the claim of assessee to the extent of Rs. 1,47,64,740/- U/s 54 of the Act holding that what has been purchased by the assessee was a residential house. However, he didn’t allow the claim

VIJAY KUMAR VIJAYVERGIYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPIUR

In the result ground no. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed

ac) if it is a mutual benefit finance company, that is to say, a company which carries on, as its principal business, the business of acceptance of deposits from its members and which is declared by the Central Government under section 620A10 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), to be a Nidhi or Mutual Benefit Society

TEJ SINGH SINSINWAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Ac and recording of satisfaction, by specified authority, with regard to the reasons\nrecorded by the assessing officer for issuance of notice u/s 148, is one of such\nsafeguards. Accordingly, no notice u/s 148 shall be issued by the assessing officer\nunless the specified authority (PCIT in the current case), is satisfied, on the reasons\nrecorded by the assessing officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER vs. ANOOP KUMAR GUPTA, AJMER

In the result appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

section 127 of the Act and thus the jurisdiction was assigned to ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer. The assessee has filed his original return of income for the year under consideration on 15.02.2021 declaring taxable income of Rs. 28,92,260/-. During the year, the assessee is having income from House Property, Income from Business or Profession, Income from Capital Gain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER vs. CHANDRA KANT SAINI , AJMER

In the result appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

section 127 of the Act and thus the jurisdiction was assigned to ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer. The assessee has filed his original return of income for the year under consideration on 15.02.2021 declaring taxable income of Rs. 28,92,260/-. During the year, the assessee is having income from House Property, Income from Business or Profession, Income from Capital Gain

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

AC 109. [Lord Asquith, in his concurring opinion, observed: "If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it."] Therefore, the logical

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

gain on sale of plots, interest and other income. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out by Income Tax department over the assessee group on 19.11.2016. Notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued in response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee filed his return of total income

M/S. KEDIA REAL ESTATE LLP,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

gain on sale of plots, interest and other income. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out by Income Tax department over the assessee group on 19.11.2016. Notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued in response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee filed his return of total income

NITIN KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

gain on sale of plots, interest and other income. Search and seizure operations u/s 132(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 were carried out by Income Tax department over the assessee group on 19.11.2016. Notice U/s 153A of the Act was issued in response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee filed his return of total income

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

gains in the hands of the shareholders and not charged to the company which used to result into income tax payable at lower rates. This was used by the companies as a tool to avoid taxation and to distribute surplus income amongst shareholders. As an anti-tax avoidance measure, the government introduced the provision of section 115QA under

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Capital Gain and other sources. Statutory notices as required under the law were issued from time to time and the assessee in response to those notices furnished the information which was after examining them placed on record as noted by the ld. AO. 5. During the course of search cash of Rs. 1,52,05,090/- was found

SHRI JAGPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, ALWAR

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

Bench: Us The Contentions Raised In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Filed By The Assessee Along

AC 473:"........the fact is that there is not and never has been a presumption that everyone knows the law. There is the rule that ignorance of the law does not excuse, a maxim of very different scope and application." It is, therefore, not possible to presume, in the absence of any material placed before the Court, that the appellant

M/S TRIMURTY BUILDCON PVT.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD, 2(2), 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. 46/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 601, Geeta Enclave, Vinoba Ward 2(2) Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabct 7285 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Miss. Shivangi Samdhani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 25/03/2021 For The A.Y. 2013-14 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of Assessee Company For The Sole Reason Of The Appeal Having Been Filed With Delay. The Action Of Id. Cit (A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please Be Granted By Setting Aside The Order Of Id. Cit (A). 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Coming To The Conclusion That The Appeal Of The 2

AC in levying penalty of Rs. 16,81,889, u/s 271(1)(c) The Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of Id. CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire penalty levied by Id. AO and confirmed by Id. CIT (A).] 4. In the facts