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

section 68.\n1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the\nassessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have\nheld in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases (CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia) SLP\nfiled by the Revenue against

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain of Rs.87,91,732/- against which deduction u/s 54B was claimed and LTCG was declared at Nil in the return filed by him as Karta of his HUF on 31.07.2007. 11. It was submitted that the AO observed that assessee has made cash payment of Rs.50 lacs to the sellers of land but failed to explain the source

MOHAMMED SABIR BABUBHAI SHAIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Gains, if any, such capital\ngain would be zero. On the contrary, there would be Capital Loss of Rs. 66,184\nwhich would be calculated for the transaction undertaken by assessee. Working\nin this regard has already been given at point IV above, which will please be\nconsidered.\n1.7. Considering the factual position already on record, the case may please

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)

section with effect the A.Y. 2009-10 and onwards. The learned assessing officer disallowed the benefit of exemption to the appellant in the assessment order on the ground that the appellant has violated the investment norms as provided under the four for the trust. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant is having investment in equity shares

GOYAL VEGOILS LIMITED ,KASAR ,KOTA vs. DCIT , CIRCLE -2, KOTA

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

capital gain or the head profits and gains from business was a subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings leading to an order dated 12 October 2010. It would therefore, follow that the reopening of the assessment by impugned notice dated 28 March 2013 is merely on the basis of change of opinion

BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

capital gain and accumulation of income u/s 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be deleted. (Emphasis Supplied] 1.6. Further, attention is also drawn towards the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in matter of Vinod Malik [ITA no. 1635/Del/2021: Assessment Year 2019-20 dated 25.11.2022] wherein it was held that 7. Failure to adhere

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

capital gains etc. II. Search and seizure operation, under section 132(1), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) was carried out on 21.07.2016at the business and residential premises of the assessee.(AO Order Page 1) III. For the relevant previous year, assessee furnished his return of income on 31.10.2017, declaring total income

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

capital gains etc. II. Search and seizure operation, under section 132(1), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) was carried out on 21.07.2016at the business and residential premises of the assessee.(AO Order Page 1) III. For the relevant previous year, assessee furnished his return of income on 31.10.2017, declaring total income

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

178 (SC). The Hon'ble Court held as under- "...The significance of this is that Parliament treated contributions under section 36(1)(va) differently from those under section 36(1)(iv). The latter (hereinafter, "employers' contribution") is described as "sum paid by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution towards a recognizedprovident fund". However, the phraseology of section

DINESH KUMAR SONI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1 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 gains, etc, which would involve reporting of accounts maintained on an elaborate basis and also detailing expenditure etc, the Assessing officer may have the discretion to reject accounts and arrive at the 18 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Soni vs. DCIT income on the basis of estimation. However, in the case of section 68, there cannot be any estimate even

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital gain for the year under\nconsideration. The incriminating material found/seized in the search and\nseizure action in \"Gokul Kripa Group\" was in the form of diaries/ registers\nincluding digital record wherein transactions executed by the key persons\nof the company GKCDPL, is written/mentioned. Ld. AO thereby noted that;\na) These digital record have project wise excel sheets wherein payments

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF),JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CENTRAL CIRCLE

capital gain for the year under \nconsideration. The incriminating material found/seized in the search and \nseizure action in \"Gokul Kripa Group\" was in the form of diaries/ registers \nincluding digital record wherein transactions executed by the key persons \nof the company GKCDPL, is written/mentioned. Ld. AO thereby noted that;\na) These digital record have project wise excel sheets wherein payments

ANSHU SAHAI (HUF), JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

capital gain for the year under \nconsideration. The incriminating material found/seized in the search and \nseizure action in \"Gokul Kripa Group\" was in the form of diaries/ registers \nincluding digital record wherein transactions executed by the key persons \nof the company GKCDPL, is written/mentioned. Ld. AO thereby noted that; \n\na) These digital record have project wise excel sheets wherein

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

178 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 4. Brief facts of the case is that in this case notice

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

178 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR 471 (SC) as the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause. 4. Brief facts of the case is that in this case notice