SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

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

capital gain is illegal, unjustified and excessive. 12. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the charging of interest u/s 234B of the IT Act. The said action is illegal and unjustified.” Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are regarding validity of initiation of proceedings under section

SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

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

capital gain is illegal, unjustified and excessive. 12. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the charging of interest u/s 234B of the IT Act. The said action is illegal and unjustified.” Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are regarding validity of initiation of proceedings under section

GOVERDHAN SIGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

234B & 234D of the Act and as also in withdrawing interest u/s 244A of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability for charging and withdrawal of any such interest. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.” 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during

BHOPAL SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Capital Gain (LTCG) Rs.7,57,192/-: 3.1 The Id. CIT(A) seriously erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of LTCG of Rs. 7,57,192/- irt plots No.157-A & 157-B which were sold for & on behalf of Mohd. Irshad and also in holding the appellant to be the beneficiary owner

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 by not allowing the registry charges of Rs. 4,55,540/-(while allowing the deduction claimed u/s. 54B of the Act for purchase of agriculture land of Rs. 70,00,000/-). The disallowance so made and confirmed by the Id. CIT (A), being contrary to the provisions of law and the established facts, kindly be deleted in full

SHRI LALIT KUMAR KALWAR,SARWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

capital gain without giving proper benefit of indexation and deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in adopting fair market value of property from F.Y. 2004-05 without considering the explanation (iii) to provision of section 48 of the Act. 5. That

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

234B, and 234C of the IT Act. 4.4 The appellant has filed detailed submissions. It is stated that vide a certificate no. 4/26/56-Po11.III of Ministry of Home Affairs, Po11 III Section intimated vide letter dated 12th November, 1958, exemption from income tax was given to the trust. The appellant has stated that AO has failed to appreciate that Section

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 gains were disclosed by the appellant in the income tax return for the year under appeal. There is no addition w.r.t. sale consideration. The regular scrutiny assessment for the year under appeal had already been completed wherein no addition has been made on the issue. Even in the satisfaction note although the reference to seize documents in the form

SATBIR YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

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

234B, 234C & 234D of the Act and as also in withdrawing interest u/s 244A of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging and withdrawal of any such interest. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. ITA 414 & 415/JP/2017_ 4 Balwant Yadav Vs. ITO 2. Since

BALWANT YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

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

234B, 234C & 234D of the Act and as also in withdrawing interest u/s 244A of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging and withdrawal of any such interest. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. ITA 414 & 415/JP/2017_ 4 Balwant Yadav Vs. ITO 2. Since

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

capital gain Rs.1,14,75,791/-, Gross Total Income Rs.1,15,64,875/- Less: Deduction under Chapter VI-A Rs. 89,084/- Restricted to Income other than LTCG –Total Income Rs. 1,14,75,791/-, R/o Rs.1,14,75,790/- Assessed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act at Rs.1,14,75,790/-. Issue demand notice and challan. Charged interest

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act, the appellant, being a layperson with limited financial literacy and no prior knowledge of tax laws, genuinely believed that the transaction was entirely tax-exempt. Accordingly, he did not file an ITR for the said year, under the bona fide belief that no tax liability arose from the transaction

MUKESH KUMAR JAJORIYA,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WD 2(3), JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 [ for short “Act” ] by the ITO, Ward-2(3), Jaipur. 2.1 The assessee has marched this appeal on the following 2 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jajoriya vs.ITO grounds:- “1. The impugned addition made in the order u/s 144/147 dated 28.12.2019 is contested on the grounds of jurisdiction and various other reasons

REGHUVEER SINGH TANWAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

Capital Gain and the impugned addition be deleted. 4. The ld. DVO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in not judiciously appreciated the objection raised and in particular of the admitted fact that in record of the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA), the character of the land still continues to be a residential property

NAHTA TRADING CO.,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

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

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

capital gain even though the same pertained/belonged to Smt. Sangeeta Nahata and not to the appellant. The addition so made and the confirmation thereof by the ld. CIT(A) being contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, the same kindly be allowed in full. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well

MUSTAFA KATTHAWALA,KOTA vs. DCIT ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1156/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16\nMustafa Katthawala\nProp. Shakti Steels, Near Reliance\nPetrol Pump Jhalawar Road, IPIA\nKota.-324005.\nबनाम | The DCIT/ACIT,\nVs.\nCircle-2,\nKota.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGPPK5043C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओर से / Reven

section 147 r.w.s.\n144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act).\n2.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds: \n“1. 1. The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order u/s\n147 r.w.s 144 dated 31.03.2023 are bad in law and on facts of the\ncase, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

capital gains were\r\nnot treated to be genuine, AO also rejected claim of assessee for exemption u/s\r\n54F—CIT(A) held that, rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F by AO, was in\r\norder-Held, section 54F, neither provided as pre-condition requirement of filing\r\nof 'return of income' by assessee within stipulated time period

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER vs. CHANDRA KANT SAINI , AJMER

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

capital gain is also offered. Thus, in the absence of any tangible material found from the search proceeding except the unsigned ikrarnama we do not see any force in the argument advanced by the ld. DR. Moreover, the ld. DR did not controvert the detailed finding on facts given by the ld. CIT(A) holding that alleged shares were transferred