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

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

capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance with

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

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

capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance with

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

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

capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance with

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

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

capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance with

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

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

capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance with

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

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

capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance with

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

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

capital gain including the report of the SIT report he had relied upon. He has heavily relied on the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein the assessee has accepted the amount as not genuine transactions and therefore, the same CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri may be viewed in accordance with

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

Capital Gain of Rs.3,78,74,469/- (PB5). 2. In the first round, the case was selected for scrutiny supposedly, on the issue of examination of LTCG. Notices u/s 143(2) dt.18.09.2015 and thereafter notice u/s 142(1) were issued time to time which were duly replied and assessment was completed vide order

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

BALVEER SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(3) JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

140 taxmann.com 338 (Allahabad) HIGH COURT OF\nALLAHABAD Distributors India C and F v. Union of India.\n\"Section 28(1), read with sections 147 and 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961-\nBusiness income Chargeable as (Reassessment) Assessment year 2013-14\nAssessing Officer issued on assessee a notice under section 148 seeking to\nreopen assessment for reasons that

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR , LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

140 ITR 801(Gau): Mool Chand Mahesh Chand Vs CIT (1978) 115 ITR 1 (All) : Siemens India Ltd vs. ITO (1983) 143ITR120(Bom). In view of the above submissions, it is submitted that the orders passed by the Ld CIT (A) and the Assessing Officer need to be quashed in entirety. Undisputed legal position with regard to the provisions

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC-2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

140 ITR 801(Gau): Mool Chand Mahesh Chand Vs CIT (1978) 115 ITR 1 (All) : Siemens India Ltd vs. ITO (1983) 143ITR120(Bom). In view of the above submissions, it is submitted that the orders passed by the Ld CIT (A) and the Assessing Officer need to be quashed in entirety. Undisputed legal position with regard to the provisions

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

140 ITR 801(Gau): Mool Chand Mahesh Chand Vs CIT (1978) 115 ITR 1 (All) : Siemens India Ltd vs. ITO (1983) 143ITR120(Bom). In view of the above submissions, it is submitted that the orders passed by the Ld CIT (A) and the Assessing Officer need to be quashed in entirety. Undisputed legal position with regard to the provisions

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

capital gains under Section 10(38) on sale of UTI TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS FUND which was purchased out of owned funds as assessee was having availability of ample of owned funds. So, no borrowing cost has been incurred towards purchase of this UTI TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS FUND and other investments which may generate exempt income. Reliance is placed

ASHISH SHARMA,GOPAL PURA BYE - PASS JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains requires to be restricted to Rs.5,17,463/- as against Rs.10,60,074/- assessed by the Learned Assessing Officer. Ground No.3 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,98,000/- u/s 69 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by the learned Assessing

NATHU LAL JAIN HUF,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed with no orders as to costs

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

140/- in respect of alleged bogus long term capital gains from sale of shares of Quest Financial Service Ltd. thereby denying exemption u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 SHRI NATHU LAL JAIN HUF VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

140 ITR 809 (Bom) and Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. V. State of Haryana, 09)\n70 STC122(SC)].\n4.4 In the instant case, the impugned notice u/s 148A(b) is dt. 30.03.2022 and consequently\nimpugned reopening notice u/s 148, all are clearly barred by limitation in as much as the\nnewly inserted Section 149(1)(a) by Finance