NEERU MOHAN NAGPAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD 2(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

192\nIn view of above facts, the assesse has rightly claimed and correctly set\noff the capital loss from capital gain earned on sale of another property\nduring the year under reference and unabsorbed portion of capital loss\nhas been rightly carried forward for the set off in the subsequent year.\nC. The assessee invites your kind attention on Board

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)

Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment of any other person (Validity of) - Assessment year 2007- 08 - In appellate proceedings, Tribunal recorded a finding that satisfaction for initiation of proceedings under section 153C was recorded by Assessing officer on 02-02-2015 - Tribunal thus opined that Assessing Officer could not have initiated and passed

PARVINDER KAUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain Account Scheme, however, ultimately invested the entire sale consideration in residential house. The court decided the matter against the assessee. The facts of the case of assessee are exactly same. However, as is evident from the above there are two views possible and there are conflicting judgments of different High Courts. As has been held

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

SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain assessee took cost of 1 bigha of agricultural land sold on 27.09.2011 at Rs.25,18,424/- (1/5th of Rs.1,25,92,121/-) and stamp duty at Rs.2,70,000/- (1/5th of Rs.13,50,000/- instead of 1/5th of Rs.14,07,735/-) and accordingly computed the indexed cost of acquisition. The 1 bigha agricultural land was sold for Rs.50

DIVYANIDHI BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the income earned on account of transfer of the land held as investment in the books of accounts of the assessee company has been offered under the head 'Income from capital gains' and there is no dispute on it. Apart from the above income, there is no other income from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

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)

capital gain arising to an assessee under s. 50 on a depreciable asset is liable to be excluded from calculation of deemed profits under s. 115JA. Exemption/deduction allowed by one provision of the Act cannot be taken away by another provision of the Act. Sec. 115JA, the predecessor to s. 115JB, was introduced to the statute book and the Budget

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

gain shall be taxed in the hands of the assessee Company. 1.2 Investment in Maharani Buildstate Pvt. Ltd (PB-41): 1.2.1 The appellant company also made investment in M/s Maharani Buildestate Private Limited in the year AY 2006-07 of Rs. 99 lacs for acquisition of shares andthus became holding company by acquiring 99.9% shareholding. This investment was also made

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

gain shall be taxed in the hands of the assessee Company. 1.2 Investment in Maharani Buildstate Pvt. Ltd (PB-41): 1.2.1 The appellant company also made investment in M/s Maharani Buildestate Private Limited in the year AY 2006-07 of Rs. 99 lacs for acquisition of shares andthus became holding company by acquiring 99.9% shareholding. This investment was also made

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 also support this contention. Thus, the 'partnership firm' and partners have been collectively seen and the distinction between the two was removed in the judicial precedents even for taxation purposes. 6.2.3 On the other hand, interest paid on borrowed capital u/s 36(1)(iii) presupposes a transaction between two independent entities, which

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the Revenue as well as CO's of\nthe assessee are dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 03/10/2024

capital gain and a further addition of Rs.56,60,800/- on\n6\nITA NO. 469 & 470/JP/2024\nDCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN\naccount of undisclosed income of lawnGarden booking- Garden Mahaveer\nParadise.\n3.2 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the Department, it is noticed from the order\nof the Id. CIT(A) who vide para

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 Gains from Penny Stock: The fact that there was an astounding 4849.2% jump in the share price within two years, which is not supported by the financials, does not justify the AO's conclusion that the assessee converted unaccounted money into fictitious exempt LTCG to evade taxes. The finding is unsupported by material on record & is purely an assumption

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

capital gain while filing the "Original return of income". 4.3. The Appellant at this juncture, the Appellant would like to draw your attention towards the provisions of S.148 of the Act, which are as under for your ready reference: [(1)] Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serves on the assessee a notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

192 has held that where two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, then the construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. 4. The Ld. D/R has filed a written synopsis where he has relied on certain decisions of Kerala High Court and admission of SLP filed by the department on this issue by the Hon'ble Supreme

ABHINAV JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INT. TAX.), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain from unquoted shares of Rs.1,192/-, 4. Income from other sources of Rs.29,743/-. Total tax paid including interest amount is Rs.30,81,238/- out of which adjustment of tax relief u.s 90 of Rs.77,679/- and TDS of Rs.7,45,838/-. The assesee went to Singapore in November 2020 and joined In Mind Cloud Pte. Limited