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

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 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

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

3 different cities prior to\nthe date of winning of the jackpot races. The assessee has given up the winning\nfrom the jackpots immediately on same becoming taxable due to the amendment\nin the income tax act. Contradistinction to the above facts in the present case,\nassessee is consistently an investor in the shares. The holding period of the\nshares

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

SMT. VINEETA KUMAR,C-13, DEEPAK MARG, M.D. RAOD, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), JAIPUR

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

section 10(38) and accordingly made addition of Rs. 3,38,161/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). Before ld. CIT (A) assessee submitted that through long term capital gain of Rs. 3,38,161/- on sale of ICICI Bond is chargeable to tax but the same is required

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 143(3

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

AJMER INDUSTRIES LLP,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

200/- was added as additional income to the income returned by the assessee. The ld. AO also initiated penalty u/s. 271AAB(1A) of the Act and consequently levied penalty of Rs. 2,38,320/- against the assessee. Based on these set of facts the bench noted that the ld. AO accepted the additional income offered by the assessee based

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

200/- was added as additional income to the income returned by the assessee. The ld. AO also initiated penalty u/s. 271AAB(1A) of the Act and consequently levied penalty of Rs. 2,38,320/- against the assessee. Based on these set of facts the bench noted that the ld. AO accepted the additional income offered by the assessee based

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

200/- was added as additional income to the income returned by the assessee. The ld. AO also initiated penalty u/s. 271AAB(1A) of the Act and consequently levied penalty of Rs. 2,38,320/- against the assessee. Based on these set of facts the bench noted that the ld. AO accepted the additional income offered by the assessee based

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

3) of the IT Act, 1961 by making addition of Rs.20,17,964/-, being the whole amount and sale consideration of shares as Income as per provisions of Section 68 of the Act.\n4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A), who after considering the detailed submissions on record and explanations furnished

SUMIT GOEL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

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

200/- and Rs. 20,86,800/- totaling Rs. 20,90,000/- and Rs. 5,072/- was deducted as brokerage by IIFL India Infoline Limited. So the total profit in this transaction was Rs. 10,82,000/- which is included in net profit of Rs. 14,14,040/- as per P&L account on page no. 18 of paper book. Therefore

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

SHRI MADAN LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , BHARATPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed statistically and

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

3), read with Section 148, vide order dated 22.12.2016, at a total income of Rs. 7,46,34,945, resulting from additions of Rs.7,45,22,506 [AO Order Page 8]. II. Against the order passed by the ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 05.09.2019, in Appeal No. 434/2016-17, deleted the additions

ITO, WARD-1, BHARATPUR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed statistically and

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

3), read with Section 148, vide order dated 22.12.2016, at a total income of Rs. 7,46,34,945, resulting from additions of Rs.7,45,22,506 [AO Order Page 8]. II. Against the order passed by the ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 05.09.2019, in Appeal No. 434/2016-17, deleted the additions

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

200/- (APB 1-3). The assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/ 147 of the Act\nat the total income of Rs.1,48,63,860/-, wherein addition of Rs.1,37,83,051/- was\nmade u/s 68 of the Act by holding the long term capital gain (LTCG, in short) of Rs.\n1,37,83,051/- declared by assessee on account

SH. SURENDER MEENA,36, PRATAP NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) made not be revised u/s 263 of IT Act in a suitable manner. Against this notice assessee filed detailed reply vide letter dt. 15.03.2022. 7. The Ld. Pr. CIT, however, at Para 9, Page 5 of the order observed that exploitation of the land purchased for commercial gain is very much evident as the land was divided into smaller

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

gain from sale of flat—Assessee has reflected that same in its capital account—Further in response to letter issued by AO during assessment proceedings, assessee submitted his reply explaining reason for increase in capital—However, Pr. CIT exercising jurisdiction under section 263, directed AO to make fresh assessment on issues which were not subject matter of limited scrutiny—Since