ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

capital gain for the year under \nconsideration. The incriminating material found/seized in the search and \nseizure action in \"Gokul Kripa Group\" was in the form of diaries/ registers \nincluding digital record wherein transactions executed by the key persons \nof the company GKCDPL, is written/mentioned. Ld. AO thereby noted that;\na) These digital record have project wise excel sheets wherein payments

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital gain for the year under \nconsideration. The incriminating material found/seized in the search and \nseizure action in \"Gokul Kripa Group\" was in the form of diaries/ registers \nincluding digital record wherein transactions executed by the key persons \nof the company GKCDPL, is written/mentioned. Ld. AO thereby noted that; \n\na) These digital record have project wise excel sheets wherein

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital gain for the year under\nconsideration. The incriminating material found/seized in the search and\nseizure action in \"Gokul Kripa Group\" was in the form of diaries/ registers\nincluding digital record wherein transactions executed by the key persons\nof the company GKCDPL, is written/mentioned. Ld. AO thereby noted that;\na) These digital record have project wise excel sheets wherein payments

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

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming finding recorded by the assessing officer that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.t. Act, 1961 are applicable to the purchase of agriculture land(s) situated outside

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

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming finding recorded by the assessing officer that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.t. Act, 1961 are applicable to the purchase of agriculture land(s) situated outside

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

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming finding recorded by the assessing officer that the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the I.t. Act, 1961 are applicable to the purchase of agriculture land(s) situated outside

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

section 10(38) of the Act was made. The income which has been offered by the appellant in the ITR also pertains to the capital gain. Thus there was naturally apprehension in the mind of the appellant that there will be enquiry into the issue of capital gains and thus the capital gain which was neither disclosed in the original

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

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

153B(1)(b)/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on\n15.12.2016 determining total income at Rs.75,620/- inter-alia\nmaking the addition of Rs.15,25,62,502/- on account of disallowing\nthe claim made by the assessee u/s 35AD of the Income Tax Act,\n1961. In this case, the assessee company constructed a hotel\nbuilding and applied

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

153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a\nreference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending\nwith the date on which the report

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

b) No cost of acquisition / cost of improvement with indexation in ITR\nfiled u/sec. 139(1) in ITR filed in response to notice u/sec. 153A and nor\nduring the course of assessment proceedings nor claimed in return\nfiled.\n(c) During remand report also no cost of acquisition (Purchase deed\netc.) cost of improvement etc. produced & in absence of same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital expenditure as application out of receipts for the year. Not pressed. Additional Ground :- The learned AO has wrongly disallowed the claim of benefit u/s 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for violation of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s. 13(2)(b)/(g) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has not taken this ground in original

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

153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference\nto the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending with the date on\nwhich the report

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

153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a\nreference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending\nwith the date on which the report

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

153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to\nthe Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending with the date on\nwhich the report

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

153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a\nreference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending\nwith the date on which the report

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

153B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in computing the\nperiod of limitation of assessment u/s 153A the following period shall be excluded:\n\n“The period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a\nreference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending\nwith the date on which the report

HARI NARAIN PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

capital gain and other sources. A search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on 07.01.2016 in the Shri Bitthal Das Parwal & Ors. vs. ACIT case of Dilip Maihar Group in which assessee was also covered. The assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the IT Act was completed on 29.12.2017. The Ld. AO in the assessment