SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

section 54 of the Act." The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Jaipur in the case of Income Tax Office vs. Rajkumar Parashar (2018) 195 TTJ (Jp) 212(DPB 10-17) it was held as: “Where the cost of the new asset is not less than the net consideration in respect of the original asset, the whole of such capital gain

SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 654/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asha Bhargava Cuke D.C.I.T. Vs. L/R Of Devendra Kumar Bhargava, Circle-2 E-81, Devashish, Radha Marg, Jaipur. Ambabari, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abspb 6891 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Dileep Shivpuri (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jaipur Dated 05/03/2018 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken:

capital gain tax.” 12. On the contrary, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below and also relied on the decisions in the cases of CIT Vs Shree Hanuman Sugar & Industries (1992) 195 ITR 625 (Cal) and Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim Vs CIT (1993) 70 Taxman 301 (SC). 13. We have heard the rival contentions

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

gain for the purposes of assessment under section 115J. Both judgements are rendered in the context of Section 115J which does not contain a provision analogous to sub sections (4) of section 115JA or (5) of section 115JB of the Act. Thus while an assessment u/s 115J would be concluded exclusively on the basis of the book profits as adjusted

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

capital gains can be allowed while computing\nbook profit as per section 115JB of the Act. In that context, the\nHon’ble High court has held that section 115JB is a self contained\ncode of assessment and the levy of tax is on book profits after\neffecting various adjustments as set out in terms of explanation\nthereto. It was further

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.

gain for the purposes of assessment under section 115J. Both judgements are rendered in the context of Section 115J which does not contain a provision analogous to sub- sections (4) of section 115JA or (5) of section 115JB of the Act. Thus while an assessment u/s 115J would be concluded exclusively on the basis of the book profits as adjusted

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.

gain for the purposes of assessment under section 115J. Both judgements are rendered in the context of Section 115J which does not contain a provision analogous to sub- sections (4) of section 115JA or (5) of section 115JB of the Act. Thus while an assessment u/s 115J would be concluded exclusively on the basis of the book profits as adjusted

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

Bench: Him.

Section 147 of the Act and following case laws: Commissioner of Income-tax-5, Mumbai v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2010] 195 Taxman 117 (Bombay) CIT vs Shri Ram Singh [ 2008 ] 306 ITR 343. (Raj) M/s. S V Jadhav VS. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1, SanglI WRIT PETITION NO.3345 OF 2024, Bombay High Court A. Rejoinder on written synopsis

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

gain for the purposes of assessment under section 115J. Both judgements are rendered in the context of Section 115J which does not contain a provision analogous to sub sections (4) of section 115JA or (5) of section 115JB of the Act. Thus while an assessment u/s 115J would be concluded exclusively on the basis of the book profits as adjusted

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

195, hence the order passed under\nSection 263 deserves to be set aside on this issue.\n3. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur\nvide order dated 20/03/2024 passed under Section 263 of the LT. Act,\nerred in remanding the ground of revision to the Assessing Officer\npassed by the Id. Assessing Officer on the issue relating

SMT. SUDHA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no orders to cost

capital gain of Rs.9,33,836/- on sale of shares of M/s. Parikh Herbals Ltd. claimed exempt u/s 10(38) is bogus by making various incorrect and irrelevant observations,’’ 2.1 As per the brief facts of the present case, the assessment under section 147 r.w.s. 144 B of the Income Tax Act was completed their by making additions under section

AJAY AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. CIT (IT), DELHI-1, CIT(IT) DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

195 in the name of assessee. Assessee himself offered the Long Term Capital Loss in his own name and claimed the TDS. 1.10 Ld. CIT observed that the booking rights were in joint name with wife of assessee, the capital loss should have been assessed 1/2 in both the assessee and his wife. 1.11 Your honour as per guidelines issued

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

capital gains were not treated to be genuine, AO also rejected claim of assessee for exemption u/s 54F—CIT(A) held that, rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F by AO, was in order—Held, section 54F, neither provided as pre-condition requirement of filing of ‘return of income’ by assessee within stipulated time period, nor places any embargo

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

gain tax, but that cannot be a case\nof penalty under s.271(1)(c). If it has claimed any exemption after\ndisclosing the relevant basic facts and under the ignorance of the\nprovision of the Act, and not offered that amount for tax, in such cases,\npenalty should not be imposed. In such cases rather it is the duty

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed; while

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

gains of business or profession",— (a) in the case of any assessee— [(i) any interest (not being interest on a loan issued for public subscription before the 1st day of April, 1938), royalty, fees for technical services or other sum chargeable under this Act, which is payable,— (A) outside India; or (B) in India to a non-resident, not being

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)

gains.” When the matter came up before the Select Committee, it was decided to omit the word “cess” from the clause. The effect of the omission of the word “cess” is that only taxes paid are to be disallowed in the assessments for the years 1962-63 onwards. 3. The Board desire that the changed position may please be brought

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

capital gains can be allowed while computing \nbook profit as per section 115JB of the Act. In that context, the \nHon’ble High court has held that section 115JB is a self contained \ncode of assessment and the levy of tax is on book profits after\neffecting various adjustments as set out in terms of explanation \nthereto. It was further

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 263 of the Act.” c. The above observation of ld PCIT is contrary to evidences and material on record as therelevant part of agreement to purchase dated 28.12.2012, the screen short of same is as under:- .................................................................................................................... 8 Pradeep Kumar Rochwani, Jodhpur. d. The Hon’ble CBDT and the decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts has settled

SHREE AURO IRON LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain and therefore,\nthere cannot be any presumption of lack of\nenquiry(copy of order attached with this PB at 72 to\n93)\nLataPhulwani\nSmt.\nITA\nNo.246/JP/2020\npronounced on\n06/10/2020\nWhere AO has exercised the quasi judicial power\nvested in him in accordance with law and arrived at a\nconclusion and such a conclusion cannot be\nconsidered erroneous simply because

YUWAM EDUCATION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

195 taxman 459 (Kerala)/[2011] 332 ITR 537 (Kerala) [26-05-2010] x x x x CIT v. Lekh Raj Dhunna [2012] 20 taxmann.com 554 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2012] 344 ITR 352 (Punjab & Haryana)/[2010] 236 CTR 414 (Punjab & Haryana) [29.09.2010] x x x x CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak [2012] 20 taxmann.com 48 (Ker.) x x x x In ManharlalKasturchand