ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Capital Gain” (Deemed total income u/s. 115JB is Rs. 4,84,39,49,080/-). The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following flagged issues:- Sr. No. Issues i. Stock valuation ii. Income/Capital Gain on sale of land or building iii. Outward Foreign Remittance iv. Depreciation Claim v. Sales Turnover Mismatch vi. Other

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

capital gain. In the result, impugned notice is quashed. Petition is disposed of. In view of the aforesaid submissions the Hon’ble ITAT is requested to quashed the proceedings initiated under section 148/148A. Cross objection Ground No. 2 In the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT Appeals erred in not quashing the assessment order which has been

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

Capital Gain” (Deemed total income u/s. 115JB is Rs. 4,84,39,49,080/-). The case was selected for Limited Scrutiny\nunder the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following flagged issues:-\nSr. No.\nIssues\ni.\nii.\niii.\niv.\nv.\nvi.\nvii.\nviii.\nix.\nx.\nxi.\nxii.\nxiii.\nStock valuation\nIncome/Capital Gain on sale of land or building\nOutward Foreign

RAM KHILARI MEENA,DAUSA vs. ITO, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by Assessment Unit of Income Tax Department [ for short AO]. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. That the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law in sustaining the addition made by ld. AO on account of Long Term Capital Gain

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

VIPUL KUMAR MODI ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR -I

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

144B of the Act is found to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2 2. That the Id. Principal Commissioner of Income- tax grossly erred in treating the exempt Long-Term Capital Gain earned by the assessee appellant as bogus and failed to appreciate that the ld. Assessing Officer had passed

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

capital gain is concerned. Moreover, agricultural claim is also justified and no further addition required, when after due verification, the basis of exemption is found correct and justified. Since the very basis of proceeding is non-existent and found to be non-existent despite there being lack of approval under the law, therefore, reassessment proceedings are without jurisdiction and accordingly

ACIT, NCR BUILDING, JAIPUR vs. HANS RAJ AGARWAL, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR JAIPUR

39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bereft of merits and law as already the assessment proceedings were initiated in present case of assessee and the issue of capital gain

HARI NARAYAN MEENA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JAIPUR

sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "144", "144B", "142(1)", "148", "154" ], "issues": "1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned. 2. Whether the same income can be taxed twice by issuing two separate assessment orders. 3. Whether the disallowance of JDA and additional expenses for capital gains

SUSHILA DEVI JANGID,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 374/JP/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2010-11 Smt. Sushila Devi Jangid 65, Koshaliya Vihar Hajyawala,Muhana Mandi Ke Pass, Sanganer, Jaipur 302 029 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 7(2) Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AFMPJ 2091 P निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Utkarsh Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by :Shri Gautam Sing

144B, since no particulars of income were concealed by assessee and in impugned assessment order section 144 was also invoked but AO abdicated his role as adjudicator in making computation by not enquiring about relief under section 48, impugned assessment order was to be set aside. 12 SMT. SUSHILA DEVI JANGID VS ITO, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

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

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

144B of the\nIncome Tax Act, [ for short \"Act\"] by National Faceless Assessment Unit [ for\nshort AO ].\n2.\nAt the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 02 days in\nfiling of the present appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee\nfiled an application for condonation of delay with following prayers

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

capital gains were\r\nnot treated to be genuine, AO also rejected claim of assessee for exemption u/s\r\n54F—CIT(A) held that, rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F by AO, was in\r\norder-Held, section 54F, neither provided as pre-condition requirement of filing\r\nof 'return of income' by assessee within stipulated time period

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

144B dated 21.03.2022, as well as the\naction taken u/s 147/148 and notices are bad in law, illegal, invalid, void-ab-intio\non facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction, without proper approval and\nsatisfaction of higher authorities u/s 151 of the Act, and also barred by limitation\nand various other reasons and hence the same may kindly

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

144B dated 21.03.2022, as well as the\naction taken u/s 147/148 and notices are bad in law, illegal, invalid, void-ab-intio\non facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction, without proper approval and\nsatisfaction of higher authorities u/s 151 of the Act, and also barred by limitation\nand various other reasons and hence the same may kindly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

144B and in accordance with scheme\nenacted by Central Government under section 151A – Whether after introduction\nof 'Faceless Jurisdiction of Income-tax Authorities Scheme, 2022' and 'e-\nAssessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022' it became\nmandatory for revenue to conduct/initiate proceedings pertaining to reassessment\nunder sections 147, 148 and 148A in a faceless manner Held, yes - Whether\nsince