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

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIGYAN LODHA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

section 10(38) of the Act. Various courts have held the above view. The addition has been made without bringing on record assessee’s involvement in earning the capital gains by the active collusion in the process of manipulating prices of companies in stock market. In view of the above, the addition of Rs.29,89,956/- as presumed commission payment

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

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

capital loss was a preconceived design to avoid tax liability on the capital gain arising from sale of shares as well as other income. The assessee instead of transferring the shares to the group concern without any consideration would have requested for extension of time for making the payment of final call money of Rs. 9.90 crores as all these

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

capital loss was a preconceived design to avoid tax liability on the capital gain arising from sale of shares as well as other income. The assessee instead of transferring the shares to the group concern without any consideration would have requested for extension of time for making the payment of final call money of Rs. 9.90 crores as all these

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

HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain and the deduction claimed is less than 5 % only and the issues raised in proceedings u/s 263 of the Act were already considered and examined by the AO. It is also notable that initiation of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act amounts to second scrutiny/ investigation of the facts of the case and is mere suspicion

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, 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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NIRMAK KUMAR KEDIA,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

SHRI NIRMAK KUMAR KEDIA,,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NITIN KEDIA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record