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.

capital gains tax, did not disclose the profits arising on its sale. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS which was finalized u/s 143(3) of the IT Act. 1961 determining total income Rs. 1,14,75,790/- on 05.12.2016 An addition of Rs 1,14,75,791/-was made on account of LTCG on sale of the impugned

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

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

capital gain and other sources. Therefore, this clearly suggests that the ld. AO was completely satisfied with manner and substantiation of the undisclosed income declared by it. Therefore, the ld. AO was incorrect in giving finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the undisclosed income. 8.4 It was further submitted that as already explained that the assessee made a surrender

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

capital asset as reduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer.] (1B) Where any income in respect of which an option is exercised under clause (2) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) is not applied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the period referred to in sub-clause

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

C) FAVOURABLE DECISION IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. SURJAN SINGH (1983) 3 ITD 438 (DEL) - In view of the aforesaid speech it is clear that the purposes of introducing the provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a) was to bring the gains of sale of urban land under taxation. There was no provisions of taxing the gains

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

13,65,623/-, there was no evidence to prove that entries recorded in documents found during course of search was over and above income declared by Assessee as undisclosed income—Assessee's Appeal allowed—Cross-appeal by revenue dismissed. (iii) It is submitted that the case of the assessee is fully covered by the Decision of the Hon'ble Bench

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital expenditure as application out of receipts for the year. Not pressed. Additional Ground :- The learned AO has wrongly disallowed the claim of benefit u/s 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for violation of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2)(b)/(g) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has not taken this ground in original

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

C Capital Gain (A-B) 1431596/- D Less: Deduction u/s 54EC 50,00,000/- E Less: Deduction u/s 54F(1) 26,73,955/- 76,73,955/- (on the payment of Rs. 28 Lacs) F Capital Gain liable for Tax 66,41,252/- 6. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upheld the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that Assessee

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld AR has also referred series of decisions including the decision of 9 DCIT Vs Jyoti Agarwal Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI AJAY AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9 DCIT Vs Ajay Agarwal The ld AR has also referred series of decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld AR has also referred series of decisions including the decision of 9 DCIT Vs Indira Agarwal Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. MALTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld AR has also referred series of decisions including the decision of 9 DCIT Vs Malti Agarwal Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA vs. SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld AR has also referred series of decisions including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. 9 DCIT Vs Rajendra Agarwal Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld AR has also referred series of decisions including the decision of 9 DCIT Vs Shri Vasudev Agarwal Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and submitted that even if the claim of exemption

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes.\"\r\nno such deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of this\r\nincome for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under\r\nsub-section (1) of Section 139.]\"\r\nOn a perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision, it transpires that sub-section

GURUVENDRA SINGH ,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

C = D-E-F- (G) (D) (B) G) (A) 2014-15 14,10,855 Nil 82,62,098 23,464 49,93,000 34,45,634 2015-16 27,87,770 Nil 2,00,04,860 56,812 1,54,73,930 44,74,118 2016-17 18,55,935 Nil 14784290 41,987 1

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

13 Narayana Heights & Tower. Therefore, the concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, two are different defaults and they cannot be intermixed. Further, the CIT(A) has not confirmed the concealment of income but he took a different view by holding that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the order of lower authorities deserves