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

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)

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition made by the ld AO in respect of long term 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

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

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

capital gain, he cannot simply dispute fact that\nassessee did not file return—Entire reasoning recorded by AO for\ninitiation of reassessment proceeding and issuance of notice under\nsection 148 was on wrong and incorrect facts that assessee has never\nfiled return of income, and in fact, it was filed—Initiation of\nreassessment proceeding u/s.147 and notice under section

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

BALVEER SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(3) JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

capital gains. The Tribunal decided to set aside the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication to provide the assessee with a sufficient opportunity to present evidence and submissions.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "143(3)", "147", "148", "142(1)", "145(3)", "271(1)(c)", "271(1)(b)", "271B", "274", "234B

VINAYA SHARMA,KOTA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

gains arising from transfer of agriculture\nlands situated in rural areas will continue to be outside scope of capital\nasset except agriculture land in urban areas and municipality /cantonment\nboard up to prescribed limit. In the light of the discussion so recorded\nherein above ground no. 2 and additional ground raised by the assessee\nstands allowed.\n19. Ground no. 3

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

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. 3

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

capital account along with schedules 5. List of unsecured loans 6. Copy of Aadhar Card of person from whom unsecured loan is outstanding. 7. List of Sundry debtors and sundry creditors along with their ledgers. 8. Details of loan and advance along with ledgers. 9. Item wise purchase on monthly basis. Yogesh Ginning Mill vs. ACIT 10. Item-wise sales

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

capital account along with schedules 5. List of unsecured loans 6. Copy of Aadhar Card of person from whom unsecured loan is outstanding. 7. List of Sundry debtors and sundry creditors along with their ledgers. 8. Details of loan and advance along with ledgers. 9. Item wise purchase on monthly basis. Yogesh Ginning Mill vs. ACIT 10. Item-wise sales

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

KAMAL DEWAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), JAIPUR

capital gains to tax-Sale consideration equivalent to stamp duty value has\nbeen duly disclosed by assessee and there is no finding that assessee has received\nany amount over and above declared sale consideration—Therefore, given that sale\nconsideration has been received directly in assessee's bank account, source of cash\nwithdrawals in earlier two years has been clearly demonstrated

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

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

capital gain, he cannot simply dispute fact that assessee did not file\n30\nITA No. 157/JPR/2024\nSuva lal Paharia vs. ITO\nreturn-Entire reasoning recorded by AO for initiation of reassessment proceeding and\nissuance of notice under section 148 was on wrong and incorrect facts that assessee has\nnever filed return of income, and in fact, it was filed-Initiation

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

234B of IT Act. In view of the findings contained in the paragraph 5.4 above, there is no need to separate adjudication. 6.0 In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 9. Feeling dissatisfied the assessee preferred present appeal on the grounds as reproduced hereinabove. To support the various grounds so raised by the ld. AR of the assessee, has filed

M/S JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.274/JPR/2021 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2014-15 M/s Jaipur Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 3, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ 0763 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby :Sh. Manish Agarwal(C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 15/02/2

234B & 234C thereon. In this case, the Assessing Officer failed to correctly charge MAT tax. Thus the order passed U/s 143(3) on 28-12-2016 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in terms of Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Limited Vis CIT2431TR wherein it has held