LAL CHAND MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7-3, JAIPUR

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

gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset by a person to a firm in which ITA No. 515/JP/15 Lalchand Meena, vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Jaipur he becomes a partner, by way of capital contribution, shall be chargeable to tax as his income of the previous year in which such transfer takes place. In other words, the year

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, 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. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 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(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

127(2) (a) which contemplates a positive state of mind of two jurisdictional Commissioners of Income Tax which is conspicuously absent—Transfer of Income-tax/assessment file of assessee from Assessing Officer, Tamil Nadu to Assessing Officer, Kerala is not justified—High Court order set aside—Special appeal allowed. Although, the ld DR has relied upon the decision

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)

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The respondent craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.” 6. The fact as culled out from the records is that in this case, original return of income

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)

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The respondent craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.” 6. The fact as culled out from the records is that in this case, original return of income

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)

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The respondent craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.” 6. The fact as culled out from the records is that in this case, original return of income

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)

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The respondent craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.” 6. The fact as culled out from the records is that in this case, original return of income

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

2) of the act mandates that CIT (A) shall\napply its mind to all the issues which arise from the order before him, whether or\nnot the appellant has raised the same before him. Therefore, it is held by the\ncourt that CIT (Appeal) has no power to dismiss appeal for non-prosecution.\nIn another case of Pawan Kumar Singhal

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)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, [Here in after referred as “Act” ] by the AO. 2 Federation of Rajasthan Trade & Industry 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:- “1) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in holding and sustaining the addition of Rs. 57,50,287/ under the head of capital gain

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

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

127 taxmann.com 820 ( Gujarat HC) (2021) 12. We have taken note of the findings giving for the judgments relied upon by the revenue and finds that all the judgments are related to a company were public was not substantially interested and also related as to whether the deemed dividend is to be taxed in the hands for the recipient company

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S HARI NARAIN PARWAL, HUF, JAIPUR

2,83,09,544/- on sale of STT paid listed shares before A.O. in assessment proceedings for the assessment year under consideration. Thus the long term capital gain income earned by the assessee is completely verifiable from the above said documents and the exemption clamed is also as per provisions of I. T. Act, 1961. For ready reference and sake

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

2,83,09,544/- on sale of STT paid listed shares before A.O. in assessment proceedings for the assessment year under consideration. Thus the long term capital gain income earned by the assessee is completely verifiable from the above said documents and the exemption clamed is also as per provisions of I. T. Act, 1961. For ready reference and sake

DCIT, C.C. -03, JAIPUR vs. SHRI TEJENDER KUMAR FALOR, JAIPUR

2,83,09,544/- on sale of STT paid listed shares before A.O. in assessment proceedings for the assessment year under consideration. Thus the long term capital gain income earned by the assessee is completely verifiable from the above said documents and the exemption clamed is also as per provisions of I. T. Act, 1961. For ready reference and sake

DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. JYOTI FALOR, JAIPUR

2,83,09,544/- on sale of STT paid listed shares before A.O. in assessment proceedings for the assessment year under consideration. Thus the long term capital gain income earned by the assessee is completely verifiable from the above said documents and the exemption clamed is also as per provisions of I. T. Act, 1961. For ready reference and sake

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SAROJ PARWAL, JAIPUR

2,83,09,544/- on sale of STT paid listed shares before A.O. in assessment proceedings for the assessment year under consideration. Thus the long term capital gain income earned by the assessee is completely verifiable from the above said documents and the exemption clamed is also as per provisions of I. T. Act, 1961. For ready reference and sake

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 10(38) of the Act and accordingly delete the addition made by the AO. The order of ld. CIT (A) is set aside.” Hon’ble Jaipur bench of ITAT vide order dated 14.10.2021 in the case of Lt. Sh Satpal Singh vs ACIT in ITA No. 289/JP/2020 has also decided the issue on favour of assessee. Reliance is also

SITA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(1), JAIPUR

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

section 68 or not. In the case of NR Portfolio, it was held that the genuineness and credibility are deeper and obtrusive. Similarly, the bank statements provided by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions cannot be considered in view of the judgment of Hon'ble court in the case of Pratham Telecom India Pvt Ltd, wherein

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 6 of The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The (Vivad se Vishwas) scheme also highlights the point that once the taxpayers decide to resolve the dispute with the tax authority under this scheme, then the amount payable would be considered final and such cases will not be opened again for proceeding under the Income

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital gains. The action of the ld.\nCIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may\nplease be granted by quashing the applicability of the provisions of section\n115BBE.\n5. The Assessee craves its right to add, amend or alter any of the grounds\non or before the date of hearing.\n5. Succinctly