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 gain Rs.1,14,75,791/-, Gross Total Income Rs.1,15,64,875/- Less: Deduction under Chapter VI-A Rs. 89,084/- Restricted to Income other than LTCG –Total Income Rs. 1,14,75,791/-, R/o Rs.1,14,75,790/- Assessed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act at Rs.1,14,75,790/-. Issue demand notice and challan. Charged interest

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

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

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

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act, the appellant, being a layperson with limited financial literacy and no prior knowledge of tax laws, genuinely believed that the transaction was entirely tax-exempt. Accordingly, he did not file an ITR for the said year, under the bona fide belief that no tax liability arose from the transaction

JAI DEEP SINGH,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain but subsequently he himself took no cognizance of the same. In the second reasons dt. 24.03.2014, he referred to the investment made in land of Rs.1 crore whereas subsequently he himself admitted that this amount is incorrect. Further in both the reasons he has stated that as per the information available in the sale deed assessee has purchased

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

section 145(3) while making the addition. The ITAT in the above order also held that the subject matter of assessment is the matters which were taken up by the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment are very much subject matter of appeal so far as the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) exercising enhancement of income. In this case also

SHRI SHYAM SUNDER DUSEJA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(3), JAIPUR, WARD-6(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied is hereby directed to be deleted and the matter is decided in favour of the assessee

section 50C of the Act, the Stamp Authority has assessed the value of property at Rs. 12,35,730/-, there was difference at Rs. 4,75,658/- in the capital gain, which has been accepted by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. The case law referred by the assessee are squarely applicable. In this case also, there

MACRO PROPRIETIES PRIVATE LIMITED,M 28 INCOME TAX COLONY TONK ROAD JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.174 TO 177/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2013-14 TO 2016-17 M/s. Macro Properties Pvt. Ltd.M-28, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road Jaipur cuke Vs. The DCIT Central Circle-2 LIC Building, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 3633 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri C.M. Agarwal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri JameshKurian, CI

section 153C of the Act qua the necessity to establish the correlation the document wise with the assessment eyars in question was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-III, Pune Vs Singhad Technical Education Society (reported in (2017) 84 Taxmann.com 290} … Para 10- The Tribunal further noted that the said Mr T John Rajasekhar

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

gains tax is payable\non redemption of the same from AY 2019-20 and they were redeemed in\nsubsequent years and income on the same was offered to tax. That balance Rs\n21,44,76,231/- is invested in Partnership Firm M/s. Pinkcity Retail ventures LLP\nout of which Rs 70,000/- is towards capital contribution and rest is towards

VIKAS DUGAR L/H OF LATE SHRI KESHARI SINGH DUGAR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”

capital gain in the hand of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, no other incriminating material either found or referred or is the basis of the addition made by the AO while framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14.” In the case of M/s Rajasthan Fort & Palace Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

VIKAS DUGAR L/H OF LATE SHRI KESHARI SINGH DUGAR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

capital gain in the hand of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, no other incriminating material either found or referred or is the basis of the addition made by the AO while framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14.” In the case of M/s Rajasthan Fort & Palace Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

VIKAS DUGAR LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI KESHARI SINGH DUGAR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

capital gain in the hand of Shri Rajendra Agarwal, no other incriminating material either found or referred or is the basis of the addition made by the AO while framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act for the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14.” In the case of M/s Rajasthan Fort & Palace Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

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 Gain whereas in the variation table on the same page, it has been taken at Rs. 1,70,52,152/- and in Computation Sheet it has been taken at Rs. 2.51 crores as Income from Other Sources thus, totally using his power absolutely in arbitrary manner. Even, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi also not considered all the grounds

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

capital gain. Record reveals that against the said disallowance of cost of acquisition the assessee has not challenged that quantum addition made by the ld.AO and since that being the fact the ld. AO for the said disallowance initiated penalty proceeding as per the provision of section 270A of the Act and thereby ordered to levy the penalty

M/S. BANSIWALA IRON & STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1388/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke M/S Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, D.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, Somani Building, S.C. Link Vs. Circle-3, Road, Loha Mandi, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadfb 2375 A Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri Dewang Gargieya (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

capital gain shown on sale/purchase of shares a notice under section 148 of the Act wasissued by the Assessing Officer to the assessee. In the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 20,70,000/- holding that the assessee could not explain the source of the entries. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

capital gains arising therefrom has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee by the Assessing officer in AY 2008-09. 10 SMT. JAMNA DEVI SHARMA VS ITO, WRD 7(2), JAIPUR C. FINDING OF LD. AO DURING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS: Since no adequate reply was furnished by the assessee, ld. AO levied the penalty. D. Written submissions made

SUSHMA SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

capital gain by the AO (ITA Ward 5(1), Jaipur) (C) Appeal No. CIT(A) Jaipur 2/11448/2017-18 – under section 271 (1)(c) against the penalty of Rs. 2,79,851/-. 2. Wrong and different-different addresses in notices:- (a.) That the Assessment Order & Computation Form by AO dated 7-10-2016 itself has wrong address and has address of Plot