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

capital gain for the year under\nconsideration. The incriminating material found/seized in the search and\nseizure action in \"Gokul Kripa Group\" was in the form of diaries/ registers\nincluding digital record wherein transactions executed by the key persons\nof the company GKCDPL, is written/mentioned. Ld. AO thereby noted that;\na) These digital record have project wise excel sheets wherein payments

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.”

12A. Had such condition being there in clause (b) itself, then there was no need to insert a further clause (ba) by the Legislature for denying benefit of 43 ITA 688/JP/2019_ M/s Wholesale Cloth Merchant Association Vs Pr.CIT section 11 & 12 in case return is not filed in time as per provision of section 139 (4A). We are also

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

capital gain for the year under \nconsideration. The incriminating material found/seized in the search and \nseizure action in \"Gokul Kripa Group\" was in the form of diaries/ registers \nincluding digital record wherein transactions executed by the key persons \nof the company GKCDPL, is written/mentioned. Ld. AO thereby noted that;\na) These digital record have project wise excel sheets wherein payments

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

capital gain for the year under \nconsideration. The incriminating material found/seized in the search and \nseizure action in \"Gokul Kripa Group\" was in the form of diaries/ registers \nincluding digital record wherein transactions executed by the key persons \nof the company GKCDPL, is written/mentioned. Ld. AO thereby noted that; \n\na) These digital record have project wise excel sheets wherein

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

capital gains were not\ntreated to be genuine, AO also rejected claim of assessee for exemption u/s\n54F—CIT(A) held that, rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F by AO, was in\norder-Held, section 54F, neither provided as pre-condition requirement of filing\nof ‘return of income' by assessee within stipulated time period, nor places any\nembargo

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

capital gains were not\ntreated to be genuine, AO also rejected claim of assessee for exemption u/s\n54F—CIT(A) held that, rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F by AO, was in\norder-Held, section 54F, neither provided as pre-condition requirement of filing\nof ‘return of income' by assessee within stipulated time period, nor places any\nembargo

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

capital gain has accrued to the assessee. CIT (A) further held that funds received by the assessee is unaccounted income of the assessee and chargeable to tax u/s 68 of the act. On the matrix as held by the Honorable Delhi high court the above issue falls within the scope of the provision of section

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

12A or section\n12AA or section 12AB; or\n(VIII) by any fund or trust or institution or any university or other educational\ninstitution or any hospital or other medical institution referred to in sub-clause\n(iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C)\nof section

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

gain tax, but that cannot be a case\nof penalty under s.271(1)(c). If it has claimed any exemption after\ndisclosing the relevant basic facts and under the ignorance of the\nprovision of the Act, and not offered that amount for tax, in such cases,\npenalty should not be imposed. In such cases rather it is the duty

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to section 2(15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to section 10(23C) and third oroviso to section

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to section 2(15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to section 10(23C) and third oroviso to section

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

section 11 & 12 of the Act. The\nregistration of the trust was again granted to the trust under new regime vide\nregistration dated 23.09.2021 (APB-88-90), that registration being in new law. The\nsubsequent observation on business activities and benefit to the specified person\nalso covered under the new law which does not warrant the rejection of the\nregistration

PHOOL CHAND,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

capital gain.” 8.1 The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission submitted that the claim of the assessee for cost of improvement is arbitrarily replaced with the figure which is far less then 12 Phool Chand vs. ITO what is claimed. The assessee has claimed benefit of section 54 of the Act which is also

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

gains of business or profession, cannot be imported to Chapter III under which income which does not form part of total income is to be computed. [Para 13.1] Under section 11(1)(a) when income is applied for acquisition of capital asset which is treated as applied, the claim of depreciation on same income will amount to double deduction. Moreover

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

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)

12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and 3 Shri Anand Jhawar, Jaipur. (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” As per this said order

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)

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]]. In the judgements referred by the appellant, the above referred judgements of honourable Supreme Court have not been considered. 5 Sh. Dinesh Kumar

SHRI HARSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

12A) and, therefore, addition u/s 68 can also be\nmade, irrespective of whether credit entries are made in the books of account of\nthe assessee or not. Similarly when the cash deposit during demonetization is\nfound to be unexplained in terms of section 68 or 69A of the Act there cannot be\nany dispute regarding applicability of section 115BBE

ROHIT LADIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

12A) and, therefore, addition u/s 68 can also be\nmade, irrespective of whether credit entries are made in the books of account of\nthe assessee or not. Alternatively, in case the money itself is treated as\nunexplained as the same is taxable u/s 69A of the Act. It is held accordingly.\nBased on the material available on file