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)

5) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is related to capital gain in case of compulsory acquisition of land which is applicable in this case. Hence, the assessee’s theory of ‘shifting of land’ is nowhere described nor application in case in view of the facts as narrated above. 2. The compensation received on A plain reading of section 10(37) compulsory

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)

5) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is related to capital gain in case of compulsory acquisition of land which is applicable in this case. Hence, the assessee’s theory of ‘shifting of land’ is nowhere described nor application in case in view of the facts as narrated above. 2. The compensation received on A plain reading of section 10(37) compulsory

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)

5) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is related to capital gain in case of compulsory acquisition of land which is applicable in this case. Hence, the assessee’s theory of ‘shifting of land’ is nowhere described nor application in case in view of the facts as narrated above. 2. The compensation received on A plain reading of section 10(37) compulsory

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)

5) of the I.T.Act, 1961 is related to capital gain in case of compulsory acquisition of land which is applicable in this case. Hence, the assessee’s theory of ‘shifting of land’ is nowhere described nor application in case in view of the facts as narrated above. 2. The compensation received on A plain reading of section 10(37) compulsory

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

capital gain in the hand of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, no other incriminating material either found or referred or is the basis of the addition mode by the AO while framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14. It is appropriate to refer relevant part of the assessment order in para

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

capital gain in the hand of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, no other incriminating material either found or referred or is the basis of the addition mode by the AO while framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14. It is appropriate to refer relevant part of the assessment order in para

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

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

capital gain in the hand of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, no other incriminating material either found or referred or is the basis of the addition mode by the AO while framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14. It is appropriate to refer relevant part of the assessment order in para

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

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

capital gain in the hand of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, no other incriminating material either found or referred or is the basis of the addition mode by the AO while framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14. It is appropriate to refer relevant part of the assessment order in para

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

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

capital gain in the hand of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, no other incriminating material either found or referred or is the basis of the addition mode by the AO while framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14. It is appropriate to refer relevant part of the assessment order in para

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

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

capital gain in the hand of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, no other incriminating material either found or referred or is the basis of the addition mode by the AO while framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14. It is appropriate to refer relevant part of the assessment order in para

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

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

capital gain in the hand of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, no other incriminating material either found or referred or is the basis of the addition mode by the AO while framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14. It is appropriate to refer relevant part of the assessment order in para

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

capital gain in the hand of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, no other incriminating material either found or referred or is the basis of the addition mode by the AO while framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14. It is appropriate to refer relevant part of the assessment order in para

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

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

capital gain in the hand of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, no other incriminating material either found or referred or is the basis of the addition mode by the AO while framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14. It is appropriate to refer relevant part of the assessment order in para

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 16. It is worth mentioning that Jurisdictional High Court i.e. Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) Vs. ACIT (2013) 36 Taxmann.com 523 / 219 Taxman 223 has also occasion to discuss the issue of addition u/s 153A

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 16. It is worth mentioning that Jurisdictional High Court i.e. Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) Vs. ACIT (2013) 36 Taxmann.com 523 / 219 Taxman 223 has also occasion to discuss the issue of addition u/s 153A

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 16. It is worth mentioning that Jurisdictional High Court i.e. Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) Vs. ACIT (2013) 36 Taxmann.com 523 / 219 Taxman 223 has also occasion to discuss the issue of addition u/s 153A

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 regarding the addition u/s 69C of IT Act of Rs. 37,57,573/- made by the AO. M/S Maverick Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd.& others 5. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the records is that a search and seizure actions u/s. 132 of the Act and/or survey action

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed

section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 regarding the addition u/s 69C of IT Act of Rs. 37,57,573/- made by the AO. M/S Maverick Commodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd.& others 5. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the records is that a search and seizure actions u/s. 132 of the Act and/or survey action