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

section 153C of the Act,\nnotices was issued for A.Y. 2015-2016 to 2021-2022 on 27.03.2023 by\nld. AO which was duly served upon the assessee through e-filing portal.\nReturn of income has been filed by the assessee in response to the notice\nu/s 153C of the Act on 26.04.2023. No additional income was declared in\nthe return

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

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

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

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

2% of Rs.9,45,817/-) is unexplained\nexpenditure of the assessee incurred towards payment of commission to obtain\naccommodation entries. Hence, an addition of Rs.18,916/- is made_u/s_69C to the\nreturned income of the assessee....''\n2.2 Aggrieved by the addition so made, assessee preferred appeal to the\nld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal primarily relying upon observation

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

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

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

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)

2, Jaipur on the date of transfer of jurisdiction as claimed. The order simply speaks of transfer of the jurisdiction. Hence, to take shelter of the transfer order to defend the limitation, is completely irrelevant and is of no help to the AO. Simply because the AO, holding charge presently, got the jurisdiction on 03.03.2023 by itself does not imply

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. 3. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta held in the case of Manoj\nJain (HUF) vs ITO [2024] 164 taxmann.com 133 (Calcutta) upheld the\nfindings of the AO and decision of ITAT in holding that the assessee was\ninvolved in trading shares of certain company and made a bogus long-term\ncapital gain claim. It is also

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

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

SMT. LAKSHMI AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: recording satisfaction for issuance of notice since the information is specific. Thus the reasons recorded for re-opening is on borrowed satisfaction and not on any satisfaction by the AO. The

gain against the loss incurred in other shares. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming addition made by AO u/s 69C of the Act by holding that the assessee has paid Rs.84,300/- being 6% of the sale proceeds of the shares as commission. 2.1 The Ground No. 1 of the assessee relates

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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

164 taxmann.com 659\n(Bombay)\nHeld: Where notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer (JAO) and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), as is required by\nprovisions of section 151A, impugned notice issued by JAO would be quashed\nReliance JioInfocomm Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2024]\n165 taxmann.com 547 (Bombay)\nHeld: As per provisions

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

164 taxmann.com 659\n(Bombay)\nHeld: Where notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer (JAO) and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), as is required by\nprovisions of section 151A, impugned notice issued by JAO would be quashed\nReliance JioInfocomm Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2024]\n165 taxmann.com 547 (Bombay)\nHeld: As per provisions

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

164 taxmann.com 659\n(Bombay)\nHeld: Where notice under section 148 was issued by Jurisdictional Assessing\nOfficer (JAO) and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), as is required by\nprovisions of section 151A, impugned notice issued by JAO would be quashed\nReliance JioInfocomm Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2024]\n165 taxmann.com 547 (Bombay)\nHeld: As per provisions