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

164(2)—Total amount was treated as income by invoking\r\nSection 13(1)(b) read with Section 11(5)—Amount said to have received as\r\ndonation was added back to income of assessee under Section 69А—CIT(A)\r\naffirmed view taken by Assessing Officer except for granting partial relief such\r\nas with regard to claim

SHARAD KUMAR BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

1. The documents and data so found and seized pertain to the assessee\nand these have bearing on the determination of total income of the\nassessee. Therefore, after recording satisfaction note on 27.03.2023 as per\nprerequisite condition laid down in provisions of section 153C of the Act,\nnotices was issued

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

164(2) is to be levied on the income earned from non-exempt asset - whether holding of ineligible assets is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) - Held that:- When the shares are forming part of corpus after 1st June, 1973, question of accretion does not even arise thus the investment in right-issue cannot

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

capital in nature at the point of time it was received, by efflux of time the money has become the assessees own money. What remains after adjustment of the deposits has not been claimed by the customers. The claims of the customers have become barred by limitation. The assessee itself has treated the money as its own money and taken

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

164,890.00 Chq. No. 683921 from SBBJ A/c No. 51052155499\n22/03/2013\n1,051,518.00 Chq. No. 683923 from SBBJ A/c No. 51052155499\n26/12/2013\n539,282.00 RTGS / SBBJH13360303191 from SBBJ Capital Gain A/c No. 61187164085\n08/07/2014\n539,300.00 RTGS / SBBJR52014080700132493 from SBBJ Capital Gain A/c No. 61187164085\n12/03/2015\n7,715,620.00 RTGS / SBBJR52015120301861488 from SBBJ Capital Gain A/c No. 61187164085\nTotal

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)

1. Surprisingly,the contention/stand of the AO here is highly contradictory. If what is contended (i.e. the AO got the seized record on 03.03.2022), is taken to be legally correct, the necessary consequence/implication shall be that the assessment year 2014-15 (and AY 2015-16) shall be completely beyond its jurisdiction u/s. 153A and u/s 153C, which provides that

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

164(2)—\nTotal amount was treated as income by invoking Section 13(1)(b) read with\nSection 11(5)—Amount said to have received as donation was added back to\nincome of assessee under Section 69A—CIT(A) affirmed view taken by\nAssessing Officer except for granting partial relief such as with regard to claim for\ncarry forward of depreciation

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

164(2)—\nTotal amount was treated as income by invoking Section 13(1)(b) read with\nSection 11(5)—Amount said to have received as donation was added back to\nincome of assessee under Section 69A—CIT(A) affirmed view taken by\nAssessing Officer except for granting partial relief such as with regard to claim for\ncarry forward of depreciation

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

capital gain. 16 RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA 1.13 It is further submitted that the various observations and the conclusions drawn by the AO in the assessment are based on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. It is trite law that suspicion however strong cannot partake the character of legal evidence (Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika

MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , KOTA

164 ITD 1, wherein it has been held that\nconclusions have to be drawn on the basis of certain admitted facts and\nmaterials and not on the basis of presumption of facts that might go against\nassessee. Once nothing has been proved against the assessee with aid of any\ndirect material especially when various rounds of investigation have been\ncarried

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

capital gain.\n1.16 It is further submitted that the various observations and the conclusions drawn by the AO in\nthe assessment are based on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. It is trite law that suspicion\nhowever strong cannot partake the character of legal evidence (Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika\nRam vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 SC). The suspicion or presumption, however strong

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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

VINAYA SHARMA,KOTA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

gains tax on profits arising\nfrom sale of agricultural land even though situate within areas specified in section\n2(14)(iii)(a) and (b) - Held, no\nSection 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [as amended by the Finance Act,\n1970 with effect from 1-4- 1970] - Capital asset - Agricultural land - Whether\nimpugned sub-clause:) (iii) of section

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

gainful guidance is taken from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Hero Cycles [1997] 228 ITR 463 (SC) wherein it was held that circulars bind the ITO but will not bind the appellate authority or the Tribunal or the Court or even the assessee. … … 14. Considering the facts on record, perusal

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1. The Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta held in the case of PCIT vs Swati\nBajaj [2022] 139 taxmann.com 352 that\n\"Where assessee earned LTCG on sale of shares and AO denied said claim and\nmade additions under section 68 on the ground that assessee invested in shares\nof penny stock companies which provided bogus LTCG and since

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

capital gains- Documents referred to are data received from tally software installed at the office premises of M/s F.S. Housing Pvt Ltd during the course of survey action. (Ref. Assessment order Para 9.1 & 9.2 Pg 28-29) and information gathered by him from the website of Rajasthan Govt (Ref Asst Order para 9.4 Pg 30) . iii. Addition

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

164-189) In the case it was held that where assessee's own interest-free funds in form of share capital and free reserves were more than its investment yielding exempt dividend income, impugned order passed by Assessing Officer making interest disallowance under section 14A in relation to such exempt income was to be set aside. (viii) HIGH COURT