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)

Capital Gain of Rs.3,78,74,469/- (PB5). 2. In the first round, the case was selected for scrutiny supposedly, on the issue of examination of LTCG. Notices u/s 143(2) dt.18.09.2015 and thereafter notice u/s 142(1) were issued time to time which were duly replied and assessment was completed vide order

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

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

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

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

gain on sale of Equity oriented Mutual Fund in which total fund invest was Rs. 1,99,000 only. The assessee was neither incurred any expenditure to earn this exempt nor claimed any expenditure in return of income. 2. As per the provisions of section 14A of Income Tax Act,1961 and rules 8D of Income Tax Rules 1962 which

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

gains.\nThis ground of appeal raised by the appellant is thus dismissed.\n8.\nIn the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed.”\nSince, the contention of the assessee was accepted in part and therefore,\nassessee preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as stated\nherein above. To support the various grounds so raised

SUSHILA DEVI JANGID,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 7(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 374/JP/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2010-11 Smt. Sushila Devi Jangid 65, Koshaliya Vihar Hajyawala,Muhana Mandi Ke Pass, Sanganer, Jaipur 302 029 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 7(2) Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AFMPJ 2091 P निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Utkarsh Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे / Revenue by :Shri Gautam Sing

capital gain would have been substantially lower. 4. Reliance is placed upon various judicial pronouncements upholding the assessee’s contention: a. Hon’ble High Court of Madras in case of Parvathi Ganesh V/s. Assessment Unit [2024] 168 taxmann.com 441 (Madras), wherein it is held that --- Where Assessing Officer added agricultural income disclosed by assessee in its return as assessee

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. Considering the same, the AO assessed the income of HUF u/s 143(3) vide order dt.07.12.2009 by accepting the declared income. Thus, when assessment has already been completed/s 143(3), then reopening the case on same issue beyond four years amounts to change of opinion which

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

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

SPECTRUM FOODS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

gains, it could not be said that Assessing Officer, on absolutely vague or unspecific information initiated proceedings of reassessment without taking pains to form his own belief in respect of such materials. 23 Spectrum Foods Limited vs ITO 18. [2023] 153 taxmann.com 282 Where Assessing Officer found that assessee was (Kolkata - Trib.) IN THE ITAT beneficiary of bogus donation

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

gains (which in this case are shares). We do not know which shares have been transacted and with whom has the transaction taken place. There are absolutely no details available and the information supplied is extremely scanty and vague. In so far as the basis for the reasons is concerned, even this is absent. The Assessing Officer did not verify

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

capital gain. 4. That without prejudice to the ground No. (1) & (2) above, the learned CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming disallowance of deduction w/s 80TTA of the IT Act, 1961 of Rs. 7,314/- in respect of interest on SB Account declared and correctly claimed by the appellant. 5. That the appellant craves