BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

gained by the assessee was chiefly to\nfacilitate the assessee's business operations with greater efficiency and profitability without\ntouching fixed capital of the assessee and there was no addition to or expansion of the profit-\nmaking apparatus. Keeping in view, the discussion above the Bench declined to interfere with\nthe order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this ground also

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gain and\naccumulation of income u/s.11(2) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be\ndeleted.\"\nOriginal order in this case was passed\nu/s 143(1) - AO made disallowance for\nPF/ESI by passing rectification order u/s\n154- held AO was not justified – appeal\nof assessee allowed\n65-66\n8\nPrincipal\nCommissioner of\nIncome-tax v. SPPL\nProperty\nManagement

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

143(1) intimation cannot be considered as a regular assessment. Therefore, once there is no regular assessment, then question that needs to be considered is whether the Assessing Officer can make adjustments towards capital gains and accumulation of income u/s.11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while processing return u/s.143(1) of the Act. The provisions of section

BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

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

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

capital gains and accumulation of income u/s 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while processing retum u/s 143(1) of the Act. The provisions of section

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.”

143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Following grounds have been taken by the assessee: “1. That the ld. CIT(A)-2 not allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee U/s 54B of Rs. 5,39,67,384/- on sale of agriculture land and confirmed the addition made by the A.O. 2. That the appellant

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)

1,54,73,930 [PB : 4 to 8]. The said claim under Section 54B was allowed by the ld. AO by passing orders under Section 143(3). Accordingly, the ld. AO in the case of the assessee for the immediately preceding year had reckoned the period of investment, for the purpose of Section 54B, from the date on which

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.

143(1). During the year under consideration, the appellant has sold two immovable property for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,49,00,000. In the computation of capital gain, appellant has claimed deduction u/s 54F for an amount of Rs. 1,03,06,141/-. The appellant submitted copy of agreement to sell of residential property purchased

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

section 143(3) on 24.02.2016 at an income of Rs 18,21,680/-. It has been noticed that the assessee had sold residential plot on 27.07.2012 at a sale consideration of Rs 1,00,00,000/-. Long Term Capital Gain

SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , 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. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), wherein following grounds have been taken. “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 5,78,571/- made by ld.AO arbitrarily and accordingly treating

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, 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. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

1,16,95,190/- under the head Capital Gains. 8. On the facts & circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (A) also grossly erred in not fully accepting additional evidence filled by the assessee. 9. On the facts & circumstances of the case and law also ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in not admitting the agreement to sale dated

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

143(3) was passed on 29.03.2016 and on the same date, notice u/s 274 r.w. sec 271 AAB (1)(c) was issued to the assessee to show cause why penalty u/s 271 AAB(1)(c) should not be imposed upon the assessee for the undisclosed income found and finally assessed in his hands. 4. During the course of penalty proceedings

MAHENDRA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 along with query letter were issued on\n\n5\nITA No. 654/JPR/2023\nMahendra Sharma vs. ITO .\n\n15.09.2017. In response thereto the assessee has filed the replies as required. The\nasessee has filled all the details related to the issue and the assessee has also\ndemand the cross examination and statements

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in upholding the addition of INR 17,09,798/- without considering and appreciating the intent and purpose of the provisions of Section 54F of the Act. The addition so confirmed by the CIT(A), being totally contrary to the provisions

VINITA BAJORIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

capital loss of Rs. 1,15,89,010/- and the same was set off against gains on sale of one more property sold for Rs. 2,51,00,000/-. The assessee contends that she has submitted sufficient details during the course of assessment proceedings. However, from the assessment order, it is seen that the AO passed an exparte order

KIRAN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

section 50C to his notice. Further in the show cause notice proposed computation of capital gain was given. The assessee has requested for personal hearing on VC. However in the show cause notice it was clearly mentioned asunder: If required, after filing written reply you may request for personal hearing so as to make oral submissions or present your case

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

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

section 143(1)(a) or 143(3) of\nthe Act, 1961 and to reassess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income\neven found during the search and seizure operation.\n15.1 In view of the discussion hereinabove, once during search undisclosed\nincome is found on unearthing the incriminating material during the search, the AO\nwould assume jurisdiction to assess

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

section 143(1)(a) or 143(3) of\nthe Act, 1961 and to reassess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income\neven found during the search and seizure operation.\n15.1 In view of the discussion hereinabove, once during search undisclosed\nincome is found on unearthing the incriminating material during the search, the AO\nwould assume jurisdiction to assess

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

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

section 143(1)(a) or 143(3) of\nthe Act, 1961 and to reassess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income\neven found during the search and seizure operation.\n15.1 In view of the discussion hereinabove, once during search undisclosed\nincome is found on unearthing the incriminating material during the search, the AO\nwould assume jurisdiction to assess

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, SIKAR

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

section 143(1)(a) or 143(3) of\nthe Act, 1961 and to reassess the total income taking notice of undisclosed income\neven found during the search and seizure operation.\n15.1 In view of the discussion hereinabove, once during search undisclosed\nincome is found on unearthing the incriminating material during the search, the AO\nwould assume jurisdiction to assess