NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

167 ITR\n471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause.\n3.1 During the course of hearing, the Id. AR of the assessee has not\npressed the Ground No. 1 and 2. Hence, the same are dismissed being not\npressed.\n4.1 Apropos ground No. 3 of appeal of the assessee, the brief facts of the\ncase are that during

SUMIT GOEL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

capital gain income during the year under consideration. The learned AO did not provide any material during the assessment proceedings or even after framing the assessment order on which he has relied upon and made the addition. The Learned AO has also not allowed opportunity of cross examination of the statement which has been used against the assessee. The following

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Gains were earned during the year under consideration. The ld. CIT\n(A) has failed to appreciate facts evident from ledger account with the broker as\nwell as contract notes, in respect of purchase and sale of shares and the loss\nincurred by the assessee. On perusal of the first appellate order, we find that ld.\nCIT (A) admitted

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

gain from sale of flat—Assessee has reflected that same in its capital account—Further in response to letter issued by AO during assessment proceedings, assessee submitted his reply explaining reason for increase in capital—However, Pr. CIT exercising jurisdiction under section 263, directed AO to make fresh assessment on issues which were not subject matter of limited scrutiny—Since

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

ABDUL AZIZ,DUDU vs. ITO WARD 7(3), LAL KOTHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act and\nwas not liable to capital gain u/s 45 of the Income Tax Act 1961.\nIn view of the above facts, the appellant prays that the addition made by the AO on account of\ncapital gains may kindly be deleted.\n6. Ld. AR of the assessee in support of the contention

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC-2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 153C, as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer should be based on cogent material and should not be arrived at in a casual manner. It is submitted that Section 132(4A) (i) clearly stipulates that when inter alia any document is found in the possession or control of any person in the course

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR , LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 153C, as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer should be based on cogent material and should not be arrived at in a casual manner. It is submitted that Section 132(4A) (i) clearly stipulates that when inter alia any document is found in the possession or control of any person in the course

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 153C, as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer should be based on cogent material and should not be arrived at in a casual manner. It is submitted that Section 132(4A) (i) clearly stipulates that when inter alia any document is found in the possession or control of any person in the course

HARI NARAYAN MEENA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5), JAIPUR

167\nITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause.\n3. The assessee has marched the present appeal on the\nfollowing grounds:-\n\"1. The A.O. erred in ignoring the evidence on record, even while\nobserving it, and disallowing the claimed expenses despite the\nevidence on record and thereby, computing the capital gain

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

167 has held that in case of proceedings initiated u/s 143(3) read with section 147, requirement to issue a notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory and section 292BB does not in any manner grant any privilege to AO in dispensing with issuance of such a notice. Further reliance was placed on the following cases:- • M/s Kaizen Organics

BHAGIRATH YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: This Office That The Appellant Has Stated That The Appellant Has Invested Of Rs. 29,32,775/- In Accordance The Provision Of Section 54B Of Income Tax Act, 1961 To Purchases Agricultural Land Out Of Sale Consideration Of Rs.37,64,082/-

Gains Under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act. Further the such agricultural land is situated 9 km away from the municipal limit of the Municipal Board or Nagar Nigam. The captioned land is not a Capital Asset within the 3 Bhagirath Yadav vs. ITO meaning of section 2(14) as it is an agricultural land under clause

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

gain has accrued to the assessee. CIT (A) further held that funds received by the assessee is unaccounted income of the assessee and chargeable to tax u/s 68 of the act. On the matrix as held by the Honorable Delhi high court the above issue falls within the scope of the provision of section

IDRISH,MATAWAS vs. ITO, WARD-BHIWADI, INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “Act”) by the ITO, Ward, Bhiwadi. 2 Sh. Idrish vs. ITO 2.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 5 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR submitted that to arrange all the papers concerning the issue

ACIT, NCR BUILDING, JAIPUR vs. HANS RAJ AGARWAL, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR JAIPUR

39. In view of the above discussion and findings, memorandum of cross objections No 1/JP/2025 filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

gains the same had been satisfactorily explained and accepted by respondent no.1. 7. In our view, the notice dated 30 th March 2019 issued under Section 148 of the said Act is issued without jurisdiction and requires to be set aside. The consequential order dated 15 th October 2019 also requires to be set aside.” 4.17 In summing

MADAN LAL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-7(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

167 ITR 471(SC) submitted that the delay may\nbe condone as the assessee is at risk of not filling the appeal on\ntime and on being aware immediately presented the appeal.\n2. 3. During the course of hearing, the Id. DR objected to\nassessee's application for condonation of delay and prayed that\nCourt may decide the issue

SANJIVANI SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 253(5) of the ITA, if there is sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal, Hon'ble ITAT may condone such delay. It is submitted that the delay was not deliberate. In view of above, it is humbly prayed that delay in filing of appeal may please be condoned. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncement