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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

capital gain by selling agricultural land, disclosed by the assessee in his revised return of Income was accepted by the Assessing Authority and there was no material available on record by which there could be an inference drawn by the authority that it was a deliberate concealment on the part of the assessee and it could not be considered that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

200/-which was a voluntary declaration.\n3.2 The very fact of the assessee declaring additional income during the course of survey itself, is admitted by the AO at various places including penalty order page 3 para (e) and even in their D-GOA.\n3.3 The search action took place at a later point of time on 28.07.2016. Notably and admittedly

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

capital gain is contemplated under section 54F (4) and it depends upon when the property of the assessee is sold and when exactly the amounts were invested, whether it was invested in a residential house or otherwise. All these facts have to be considered with reference to provisions of section 54F (4) along with section 139 (1

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). The Id. AO has discussed the issue of LTCG particularly in para 2 (PB 120). The AO, who finally passed the order dt.31.07.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act (PB 119-121) by making additions / disallowances of Rs. 25,200/-and Rs. 8,52,531/-. Notably, no variation has been made

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

capital nature but had changed its character to be of revenue nature, it was treated to be taxable income of the assessee. Thus, the amount of Rs. 1,03,648/- found credited in the books of account of the assessee, the liability to pay back the same had ceased to exist and, therefore, the Tribunal had rightly treated

MUNNI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, JAIPUR

capital gain. She filed her return of income for A.Y. 2014-15\ndeclaring an income of Rs. 21,35,200/- on 18-3-2015 which was processed under\nsection 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for\nlimited scrutiny under section

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D,\n80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/-, Rs\n1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the\nhead \" Income from House Property\" at Rs 70,000/- thereby declaring net\ntaxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- and refund

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D,\n80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/-, Rs\n1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the\nhead \" Income from House Property\" at Rs 70,000/- thereby declaring net\ntaxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- and refund

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D,\n80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/-, Rs\n1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the\nhead \" Income from House Property\" at Rs 70,000/- thereby declaring net\ntaxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- and refund

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D,\n80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/-, Rs\n1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the\nhead \" Income from House Property\" at Rs 70,000/- thereby declaring net\ntaxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- and refund

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D,\n80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/-, Rs\n1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the\nhead \" Income from House Property\" at Rs 70,000/- thereby declaring net\ntaxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- and refund

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

200/-. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny by issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. Details and information sought by AO were furnished and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act after making addition u/s 68 to the tune of Rs.31,70,080/- by treating the long term capital gain [claimed exempt

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 68. 26 RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA 1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have held in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

capital gain. The AO, however, made additions on Shri Madho Lal Saini and Others. account of unexplained investment by them on account of cash payment reflected in the seized material. Therefore, the AO has not disturbed the sale consideration received by the assessee and his two sons in respect of sale of land. Accordingly, when the transaction of sale

MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , KOTA

1, wherein it has been held that\nconclusions have to be drawn on the basis of certain admitted facts and\nmaterials and not on the basis of presumption of facts that might go against\nassessee. Once nothing has been proved against the assessee with aid of any\ndirect material especially when various rounds of investigation have been\ncarried out, then

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

section 68.\n1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the\nassessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have\nheld in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases (CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia) SLP\nfiled by the Revenue against

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