SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, WARD -1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

capital gain. But in this case, neither statement was supplying to the assessee nor cross examination was allowed by the learned A.O. Therefore, in our considered opinion, assessee has discharged his onus and no addition can be sustained in the hands of the assessee." 7.2 CIT vs Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd [2019] 110 taxmann.com 64 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

gain.\n10. We noted that the assessee raised objections to the invocation of Section\n50C during the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings. It was submitted\nthat a request was made before both the lower authorities to refer the matter to the\nDepartmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the fair market value of\nthe property. However, the request

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

TARA SONI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders\nas to cost

section 10(38) of the Act.”\ng)\nGTC Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 164 ITD 1 (Mumbai Trib.)(SB)\n“....Ultimately the entire case of Revenue hinges upon the presumption that assessee is\nbound to have some large share in so called secret money in the form of premium and its\ncirculation. However, this presumption or suspicion how strong

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

gain.\n10. We noted that the assessee raised objections to the invocation of Section\n50C during the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings. It was submitted\nthat a request was made before both the lower authorities to refer the matter to the\nDepartmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the fair market value of\nthe property. However, the request

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

gain.\n10.\nWe noted that the assessee raised objections to the invocation of Section\n50C during the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings. It was submitted\nthat a request was made before both the lower authorities to refer the matter to the\nDepartmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the fair market value of\nthe property. However, the request

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

gain.\n10. We noted that the assessee raised objections to the invocation of Section\n50C during the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings. It was submitted\nthat a request was made before both the lower authorities to refer the matter to the\nDepartmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the fair market value of\nthe property. However, the request

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

capital gain has been duly established and substantiated, therefore, onus of the Assessee has been duly discharged. Thus, facts of the case of Assessee is clearly distinguishable. Alok Kumar Jain vs. ACIT/DCIT Para Argument by department in their written Rejoinder by the Assessee-Appellant submission filed during hearing on 16.01.2025 iv. Pr CIT vs Bikram Singh 2017 85 This judgment

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

gain.\n\n10. We noted that the assessee raised objections to the invocation of Section\n50C during the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings. It was submitted\nthat a request was made before both the lower authorities to refer the matter to the\nDepartmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the fair market value of\nthe property. However, the request

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

gain.\n\n10. We noted that the assessee raised objections to the invocation of Section\n50C during the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings. It was submitted\nthat a request was made before both the lower authorities to refer the matter to the\nDepartmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the fair market value of\nthe property. However, the request

ASHISH SHARMA,GOPAL PURA BYE - PASS JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains requires to be restricted to Rs.5,17,463/- as against Rs.10,60,074/- assessed by the Learned Assessing Officer. Ground No.3 In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,98,000/- u/s 69 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by the learned Assessing

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

183 : (2011) 52 DTR (Bom) 71\n: (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) concurred with.\nThe very basis of initiation of proceedings for which reasons to believe were\nrecorded were income escaping assessment in respect of items of club fees, gifts\nand presents, etc., but the same having not been done, the AO proceeded to\nreduce the claim of deduction under

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

183 : (2011) 52 DTR (Bom) 71\n: (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) concurred with.\nThe very basis of initiation of proceedings for which reasons to believe were\nrecorded were income escaping assessment in respect of items of club fees, gifts\nand presents, etc., but the same having not been done, the AO proceeded to\nreduce the claim of deduction under

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

183 : (2011) 52 DTR (Bom)\r\n71 : (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) concurred with.\r\nThe very basis of initiation of proceedings for which reasons to believe were\r\nrecorded were income escaping assessment in respect of items of club fees,\r\ngifts and presents, etc., but the same having not been done, the AO proceeded\r\nto reduce

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 271(1)(c)\nof I.T. Act, 1961 imposing penalty being 100% of tax leviable on\nfollowing income treating same as concealed income of assessee-\nFurther AO also imposed penalty u/s 271AAA by passing separate\norder on alleged undisclosed income which she determined by treating\nland under JV as outright sale on income therefore on same income\ntwo different penalties

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

AMIT GOYAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), JAIPUR

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

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

183/- made by the AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) by holding the Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares as unexplained credit, after placing reliance onsome information and statements of third parties recorded by some other officials, in some other case and behind the back of assessee that too without having any specific mention therein of either