VINODKUMAR AGARWAL,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

capital gain, considering the sale proceeds of plots and villas. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal, stating that no documentary evidence for the cost of acquisition or improvement was produced.", "result": "Allowed for statistical purposes", "sections": [ "132", "153A", "143(3)", "153B

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)

section 153C thereafter is also barred by limitation and thus, being a nullity, deserves to be quashed. 2. The Id. CITA erred in not deciding that the impugned assessment order passed us 144 r.w.s. 153C of the Act dated 30.03.2023 for A.Y. 2014 15 is barred by limitation us 153B r.w.s 153C of the Act. Considering that the date

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

capital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before\nAssessing Officer that value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority\nwas higher than fair market value - Value adopted by stamp valuation authority\nhad not ever been disputed by assessee in any appeal or revision or otherwise to\nany other authority or Court as referred to in section

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

capital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before\nAssessing Officer that value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority\nwas higher than fair market value - Value adopted by stamp valuation authority\nhad not ever been disputed by assessee in any appeal or revision or otherwise to\nany other authority or Court as referred to in section

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

capital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before\nAssessing Officer that value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority\nwas higher than fair market value - Value adopted by stamp valuation authority\nhad not ever been disputed by assessee in any appeal or revision or otherwise to\nany other authority or Court as referred to in section

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

capital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before\nAssessing Officer that value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority\nwas higher than fair market value - Value adopted by stamp valuation authority\nhad not ever been disputed by assessee in any appeal or revision or otherwise to\nany other authority or Court as referred to in section

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before\nAssessing Officer that value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority\nwas higher than fair market value - Value adopted by stamp valuation authority\nhad not ever been disputed by assessee in any appeal or revision or otherwise to\nany other authority or Court as referred to in section

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before\nAssessing Officer that value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority\nwas higher than fair market value - Value adopted by stamp valuation authority\nhad not ever been disputed by assessee in any appeal or revision or otherwise to\nany other authority or Court as referred to in section

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Capital Gain. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total

SMT. NIRMALA MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

Section. The addition of Rs. 1401540 made to the income of the appellant and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on this count on account of difference of DLC value and purchase consideration of Agriculture land(s) is therefore wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. 2. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend

SHRI YOGESH MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

Section. The addition of Rs. 1401540 made to the income of the appellant and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on this count on account of difference of DLC value and purchase consideration of Agriculture land(s) is therefore wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. 2. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend

SMT. KAVITA MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

Section. The addition of Rs. 1401540 made to the income of the appellant and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on this count on account of difference of DLC value and purchase consideration of Agriculture land(s) is therefore wrong, unwarranted and bad in law. 2. That the appellant craves the permission to add to or amend

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

Capital Gain for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

capital gain. The AO, however, made additions on Shri Madho Lal Saini and Others. account of unexplained investment by them on account of cash payment reflected in the seized material. Therefore, the AO has not disturbed the sale consideration received by the assessee and his two sons in respect of sale of land. Accordingly, when the transaction of sale