DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on\nthe amount awarded on year to year basis.\n4. The appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17-9-1993 informing the ITO\nthat he had received interest amount of Rs.76,84,829 and interest accrued from\nyear to year was assessable in each year. Year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on\nthe amount awarded on year to year basis.\n4. The appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17-9-1993 informing the ITO\nthat he had received interest amount of Rs.76,84,829 and interest accrued from\nyear to year was assessable in each year. Year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on\nthe amount awarded on year to year basis.\n4. The appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17-9-1993 informing the ITO\nthat he had received interest amount of Rs.76,84,829 and interest accrued from\nyear to year was assessable in each year. Year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on\nthe amount awarded on year to year basis.\n4. The appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17-9-1993 informing the ITO\nthat he had received interest amount of Rs.76,84,829 and interest accrued from\nyear to year was assessable in each year. Year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on\nthe amount awarded on year to year basis.\n4. The appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17-9-1993 informing the ITO\nthat he had received interest amount of Rs.76,84,829 and interest accrued from\nyear to year was assessable in each year. Year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on\nthe amount awarded on year to year basis.\n4. The appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17-9-1993 informing the ITO\nthat he had received interest amount of Rs.76,84,829 and interest accrued from\nyear to year was assessable in each year. Year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on\nthe amount awarded on year to year basis.\n4. The appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17-9-1993 informing the ITO\nthat he had received interest amount of Rs.76,84,829 and interest accrued from\nyear to year was assessable in each year. Year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on\nthe amount awarded on year to year basis.\n4. The appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17-9-1993 informing the ITO\nthat he had received interest amount of Rs.76,84,829 and interest accrued from\nyear to year was assessable in each year. Year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on\nthe amount awarded on year to year basis.\n4. The appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17-9-1993 informing the ITO\nthat he had received interest amount of Rs.76,84,829 and interest accrued from\nyear to year was assessable in each year. Year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on\nthe amount awarded on year to year basis.\n4. The appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17-9-1993 informing the ITO\nthat he had received interest amount of Rs.76,84,829 and interest accrued from\nyear to year was assessable in each year. Year

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ANIMESH AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on\nthe amount awarded on year to year basis.\n4. The appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17-9-1993 informing the ITO\nthat he had received interest amount of Rs.76,84,829 and interest accrued from\nyear to year was assessable in each year. Year

MAHAVEER YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

1. The agricultural land under consideration is situated in Village Budhi Bawal, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar. The Inspector in his report has submitted that the agricultural is 12 kms away from the municipal limits of Kotkasim Tehsil and 15 kms of Bhiwadi. This is also evident from the letter dated 19.03.2015 u/s 133(6) by the Tehsildar of Kotkasim, Alwar

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

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

201 & 209/JP/2017 and 744/JP/2018, relating to the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, relating to the appellant, wherein, it was held that no disallowance of interest could be made in respect of the amount invested by the assessee company in the subsidiaries, either u/s 36(1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

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

201 & 209/JP/2017 and 744/JP/2018, relating to the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, relating to the appellant, wherein, it was held that no disallowance of interest could be made in respect of the amount invested by the assessee company in the subsidiaries, either u/s 36(1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

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

201 & 209/JP/2017 and 744/JP/2018, relating to the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15, relating to the appellant, wherein, it was held that no disallowance of interest could be made in respect of the amount invested by the assessee company in the subsidiaries, either u/s 36(1

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

201 ITR 442 (Raj.) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under :- “Land is a capital asset in terms of section 2(14) of the Act and, in accordance with the scheme of the Act, it is treated as a separate asset. Even for the purpose of section 32, a building which is entitled for depreciation would mean

CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

Section 69C (unexplained expenditure) of the Income Tax Act since the expense was neither incurred nor claimed by the assessee. ITAT rulings in Parasmal Bhandari, Reena Kumari, Soumitra Choudhury, Kanwarlal Agarwal, and Shri Amandeep Singh Bhatia stress that such additions require direct, credible evidence linking the assessee to the payments. Given the transparency of the assessee's transactions through recognized