SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

e) Sec. 33A : Cases in which the ITO or the Asstt. Commissioner thinks that an assessment should be revised, must be brought to the notice of the CIT. (f) Sec. 35 : Mistakes should be rectified as soon as they are discovered without waiting for an assessee to point them out. (g) Sec. 60(2) : Cases where relief can properly

VINOD KUMAR MITTAL,BEAWAR vs. ITO, AJMER

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

gains arising before the 11 Shri Vinod Kumar Mittal vs ITO, Ward- 2(3), Ajmer 1st day of April, 1946, or after the 31st day of March, 1948, and before the 1st day of April, 1956. Explanation 2.—The expression "accumulated profits" in sub-clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall include all profits of the company

GURUVENDRA SINGH ,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

22) 1.4. The land was thereafter converted by the assessee, from being part of his Capital Asset into Stock in Trade. Gains on the sale of such stock in trade and prior to such sale i.e. gains till the date of conversion, was computed by the assessee in terms of Section 45(2) of ITA. 1.5. Thereafter, as and when

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

Section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 22.12.2018. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following 2 Indira Giri vs. ITO grounds:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in law in upholding the action of Ld. AO in denying relief

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

capital gain and under computation of income of Rs 94,39,201/- with tax effect of Rs 26,25,015/- including interest u/s 234B of Rs 6,80,540/- Hence, I have reason to believe that this is a fit case to be reopened u/s 148 of the I.T. Act. On account of failure on the part of the assessee

LAL CHAND MEENA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7-3, JAIPUR

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

2(47) read with section 45(3) of the Act 17. We now refer to the provisions of section 50C, which has been invoked by the AO while bringing to tax the subject transaction, to examine whether the said provisions are applicable in the instant case. Section 50C reads as under: “(1) Where the consideration received or accruing

KIRAN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

section 50C to his notice. Further in the show cause notice proposed computation of capital gain was given. The assessee has requested for personal hearing on VC. However in the show cause notice it was clearly mentioned asunder: If required, after filing written reply you may request for personal hearing so as to make oral submissions or present your case

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT LTD. 1/2 LIC FLATS, VIDYADHAR NAGAR, SECTOR-6, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

capital gains arising before the 1st day of April, 1946, or after the 31st day of March, 1948, and before the 1st day of April, 1956. Explanation 2.—The expression "accumulated profits" in sub-clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall include all profits of the company up to the date of distribution or payment referred to in those

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

capital gains arising before the 1st day of April, 1946, or after the 31st day of March, 1948, and before the 1st day of April, 1956. Explanation 2.—The expression "accumulated profits" in sub-clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall include all profits of the company up to the date of distribution or payment referred to in those

SMT. MANJU GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

capital gains arising before the 1st day of April, 1946, or after the 31st day of March, 1948, and before the 1st day of April, 1956. Explanation 2.—The expression "accumulated profits" in sub-clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall include all profits of the company up to the date of distribution or payment referred to in those

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SMT. VEENA GOAYAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

22)(e) and thus are not applicable in the case of the assessee. 10. Detailed finding recorded by the ld. CIT(A) are as per the material on record, accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order 8 ITA 75 & 76/JP/2020_ DCIT Vs. Smt. Veena Goyal & 1 Anr of the ld. CIT(A) for deleting

SHARAD KUMAR BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 153C of the Act,\nnotices was issued for A.Y. 2015-2016 to 2021-2022 on 27.03.2023 by\nld. AO which was duly served upon the assessee through e-filing portal.\nReturn of income has been filed by the assessee in response to the notice\nu/s 153C of the Act on 26.04.2023. No additional income was declared in\nthe return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The appellant Pvt. Ltd. company before submitting the ground- wise submissions, the appellant submits the following undisputed facts of the case:– (i) That during the course of search and seizure action carried under section 132 of the IT Act by the Department no incriminating document was found and/or seized

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The appellant Pvt. Ltd. company before submitting the ground- wise submissions, the appellant submits the following undisputed facts of the case:– (i) That during the course of search and seizure action carried under section 132 of the IT Act by the Department no incriminating document was found and/or seized

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The appellant Pvt. Ltd. company before submitting the ground- wise submissions, the appellant submits the following undisputed facts of the case:– (i) That during the course of search and seizure action carried under section 132 of the IT Act by the Department no incriminating document was found and/or seized

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The appellant Pvt. Ltd. company before submitting the ground- wise submissions, the appellant submits the following undisputed facts of the case:– (i) That during the course of search and seizure action carried under section 132 of the IT Act by the Department no incriminating document was found and/or seized

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

gains falling within the following classes shall not be included in the total income of the person receiving them: 22 Bharatpur Royal Family Religious & Ceremonial Trust Moti Mahal, Bharatpur Vs. CIT(E), Jaipur (i) Subject to the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 16, any income derived from property held under trust or other legal obligation

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN EMPLOYEES CREDIT & THIRFT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA No

E Filling Acknowledgement No\n171249720141010 on dated 14/10/2023, declaring a total income of Rs Nil after\nclaiming a deduction of Rs 1291250/-under the provision of section 80P(2)(i) of\nITA 1961\n7.\nThe Ld AO considered interest received on FDRs as income income from\nother sources and he did not consider interest on FDR as income from business

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

22)(e) of the Act. The ld. A/R has further contended that since the assessment was not pending as on date of search and there is no incriminating material found and seized disclosing any income on account of deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return