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

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

section 5 of the Limitation\nAct 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters\non 'merits'. The expression sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to\nenable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice-that\nbeing the life-purpose

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

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

151A of the Act and the\nsame deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is thus prayed that the\nconsequential order passed u/s 147 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.\n2. Re Assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 completed without issuing notice_u/s\n143(2) of the Act\nIn this regard, it is submitted that

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

151A of the Act and the\nsame deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is thus prayed that the\nconsequential order passed u/s 147 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.\n2. Re Assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 completed without issuing notice_u/s\n143(2) of the Act\nIn this regard, it is submitted that

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

151A of the Act and the\nsame deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is thus prayed that the\nconsequential order passed u/s 147 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.\n2. Re Assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 completed without issuing notice_u/s\n143(2) of the Act\nIn this regard, it is submitted that

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

151A of the Act and the\nsame deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is thus prayed that the\nconsequential order passed u/s 147 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.\n2. Re Assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 completed without issuing notice_u/s\n143(2) of the Act\nIn this regard, it is submitted that

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

151A of the Act and the\nsame deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is thus prayed that the\nconsequential order passed u/s 147 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.\n2. Re Assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 completed without issuing notice_u/s\n143(2) of the Act\nIn this regard, it is submitted that

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

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 in instant case impugned proceedings under section 148A as well as\nconsequential notice

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. HEM CHAND JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

capital gain of Rs.10,78,647/-. The short termcapital gain consists of gain on sale of shares of Gini Silk Mills Ltd. of Rs.3,28,51,440/-,gain on sale of other shares of Rs.4,04,95,909/- and loss on sale of other shares of Rs.7,22,67,811/-. 2. The AO issued notice

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

Capital Gain (LTCG)\nin complete disregard to the other specific binding provisions of law contained u/s\n45 r.w.s. 48 of the Act. The addition of the LTCG being contrary to the provisions\nof law and facts on the record and hence the same kindly be deleted in full.\n5.2. Rs. 54,50,455/- The Id. AO erred

RAGHAV COMMODITIES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Capital gain. The report of the SEBI Related to the stock market regulation and its order is not in assistance to the revenue based on these findings the CIT hold view that mere statement of third-party is not enough to make addition in the hands of the assessee and also vacated the findings

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

151A, to impart greater efficiency, transparency and accountability by applying artificial intelligence, technological innovations, etc., but as of now, from a careful reading of the notification dated 29.03.2022, along with the statutory provisions, we find that the aforesaid notification does not cover a case where notice under Section 148 is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) the information received

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

151A, to impart greater efficiency, transparency and accountability by applying artificial intelligence, technological innovations, etc., but as of now, from a careful reading of the notification dated 29.03.2022, along with the statutory provisions, we find that the aforesaid notification does not cover a case where notice under Section 148 is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) the information received