DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain on sale of shares as undisclosed income and offered the same for taxation. In the return of income filed in response to notice U/s 153A of the Act, the assessee declared the total income of Rs.1,47,31,890/- and agricultural income of Rs. 14,20,207/- including the surrendered income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. MALTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

capital gain on sale of shares as undisclosed income and offered the same for taxation. In the return of income filed in response to notice U/s 153A of the Act, the assessee declared the total income of Rs.2,95,52,060/- and agricultural income of Rs. 14,20,207/- including the surrendered income

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)

Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment of any other person (Validity of) - Assessment year 2007- 08 - In appellate proceedings, Tribunal recorded a finding that satisfaction for initiation of proceedings under section 153C was recorded by Assessing officer on 02-02-2015 - Tribunal thus opined that Assessing Officer could not have initiated and passed

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

capital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before\nAssessing Officer that value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority\nwas higher than fair market value - Value adopted by stamp valuation authority\nhad not ever been disputed by assessee in any appeal or revision or otherwise to\nany other authority or Court as referred to in section

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.

gain for the purposes of assessment under section 115J. Both judgements are rendered in the context of Section 115J which does not contain a provision analogous to sub- sections (4) of section 115JA or (5) of section 115JB of the Act. Thus while an assessment u/s 115J would be concluded exclusively on the basis of the book profits as adjusted

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.

gain for the purposes of assessment under section 115J. Both judgements are rendered in the context of Section 115J which does not contain a provision analogous to sub- sections (4) of section 115JA or (5) of section 115JB of the Act. Thus while an assessment u/s 115J would be concluded exclusively on the basis of the book profits as adjusted

HEMA KANWAR NARENDRA SINGH RATHOD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

207, Gomes Defence Colony, Central Circle-2, Avenue-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AASPR 0262 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.R. Sharma, CA & Shri R.K. Bhatra, CA. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT. lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing

HEMA KANWAR NARENDRA SINGH RATHOD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

207, Gomes Defence Colony, Central Circle-2, Avenue-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AASPR 0262 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.R. Sharma, CA & Shri R.K. Bhatra, CA. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT. lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NITIN KEDIA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

SHRI NIRMAK KUMAR KEDIA,,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NIRMAK KUMAR KEDIA,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

capital assets, therefore, whatever gain was assessable on sale of such plots is liable to be taxed under the head capital gains as against the income from business. Accordingly, the A.O. was not justified in bringing to tax such income from sale of plots held by the assessee as capital asset under the head business income. From the record

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

capital gain. M/s. AU Small Finance Bank Limited & Avas Financiers Limited 4.4 The ld. PCIT also noticed that the provision of section 43D was not applicable in assessee's case, being NBFC. In the financial statements, NPA was not categorized and depicted as per the norms laid down in RBI's master direction i.e. into substandard assets, doubtful assets

MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gains tax GROUND No. (2) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts sustaining legality of order of the Id. AO in which addition of Rs.4,07,000/- was made by ignoring the different judicial pronouncements when: 10 MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR (a) Reasons recorded and notice

KAMAKSHI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Section 91 and 92 - Indian admissible against 17-18 2 AIR 1992 Kerala 115 (Kerala High Court) Evidence Act, 1872 Registered Sale Deed. Febril Gasosa vs. Labour Commissioner and others AIR 1997 (S.C.) 954 Paramjit Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 323 ITR 0588 (P&H) Smt. K.Narasamma vs. ITO (1990) 32 ITD 494 (Hyd Trib) Court should safeguard itself

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

207 companies list as Jamakharchi company' and also provided list of beneficiaries, however list of beneficiaries company were not provided to us. It is further submitted that in statement dt. 08-02-18, he has pointed out the name of beneficiary as 'N M Group' but that is limited to transaction with Kalyani Suppliers Pvt Ltd and Everlink Vyapar