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)

1 of the Cross appeal :- The ground no.1 is challenging the finding of the ld. AO that the agricultural land sold was situated within 8 KM of Municipal Limits of Jaipur and, therefore, not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition

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)

1 of the Cross appeal :- The ground no.1 is challenging the finding of the ld. AO that the agricultural land sold was situated within 8 KM of Municipal Limits of Jaipur and, therefore, not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition

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)

1 of the Cross appeal :- The ground no.1 is challenging the finding of the ld. AO that the agricultural land sold was situated within 8 KM of Municipal Limits of Jaipur and, therefore, not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition

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)

1 of the Cross appeal :- The ground no.1 is challenging the finding of the ld. AO that the agricultural land sold was situated within 8 KM of Municipal Limits of Jaipur and, therefore, not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly capital gain tax is leviable on compulsory acquisition

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

c) had been the subject matter of any appeal [filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988], the powers of the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner under this sub-section shall extend [and shall be deemed always to have extended] to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal.]” From the above proposition

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

217) ITR 597 (SC; Raymand Woollen Mills Ltd. ITO (236) ITR 34 (SC In the case of Raymond Woollen Mills Limited v. Income Tax Officer & Ors. [Supra). the Apex Court held and observed as under: "In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessen

VINITA BAJORIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

Capital Gain whereas in the variation table on the same page, it has been taken at Rs. 1,70,52,152/- and in Computation Sheet it has been taken at Rs. 2.51 crores as Income from Other Sources thus, totally using his power absolutely in arbitrary manner. Even, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi also not considered all the grounds

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

gain of USD 28 million was included as the income of the UK subsidiary in its assessment proceedings. Thus, a sum of money had been borrowed by a subsidiary which was then repaid. In the assessment proceedings of NDTV, the parent company, it was argued in the transfer pricing proceedings that no one would have lent money to the subsidiary

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

1:1, market price of clinker can be used to benchmark the arm’s length transaction between the Waste facility and Cement Manufacturing units that are the end users of pond ash produced by the former. Some of the assessee’s contentions were rejected, the summary of which can be found as below: Assessee’s submissions vide reply dated

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.

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

capital, unsecured loan, LTCG etc and to facilitate the same he earns commission. Further, financial analysis of the companies from whom the fund reached into the account of beneficiary companies was analyzed and found that the fund was finally transferred to the account of beneficiaries from the companies which have no actual business activities and showing either nil income

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

gain on sale of “UTI Transportation and Logistics Fund under section 10(38), and by investment of Rs 1,99,000/- which was made from owned funds as assessee was having availability of ample of owned funds. So, no borrowing cost has been incurred towards purchase of this UTI TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS FUND and other investments which may generate exempt

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

C, (2012) 344 ITR 641 While making reassessment under section 147 the assessing officer though empowered to assess or reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice during the course of proceedings. However, if after issuing a notice u/s 148 he accepts the contention of the assessee and holds that the income for which

SONU AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

217]”. The AO considered the reply furnished by the assessee as well as objection raised but could not found it tenable. Accordingly, the AO passed order under section 148A(d) concluding that on the basis of material available on record, the case of the assessee is a fit case for issuance of notice under section

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

gains.\nThis ground of appeal raised by the appellant is thus dismissed.\n8.\nIn the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed.”\nSince, the contention of the assessee was accepted in part and therefore,\nassessee preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as stated\nherein above. To support the various grounds so raised

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

217/-. This has resulted into allowing of excess deduction of Rs. 76,02,852/- (10861217-3258365) u/s 801C(2)(b)(ii) of the Act involving excess carry forward MAT credit of Rs. 25,84,210/- with total income to the extent. Since the mistake being apparent from the face of record, the same was rectified

SUSHILA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

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

217 ITR 597 (SC)]:\nRaymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO 1999 236 ITR 34 (SC).\n17. The scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from\nApril 1, 1989, as also sections 148 to 152 are substantially different\nfrom the provisions as they stood prior to such substitution. Under the\nold provisions of section 147, separate clauses