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

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

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

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

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

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

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

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

Section 68, the first condition is that the amount must be credited in the books of accounts, Ld. AO has nowhere mentioned that he found any sum credited in appellant's books of accounts. Further, as stated above, Alok Kumar Jain vs. ACIT/DCIT the Appellant already submitted the sufficient documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the exemption claimed

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

Section 80IA (8) of the Act. In CIT vs. Thiagarajar Mills Ltd. in Tax Case(Appeal) Nos.68 to 70 of 2010 dated 07-06-2010, it was held that captive consumption of power generated by the assessee from its own power plant would enable the assessee to derive profit and gains by working out the cost of such consumption

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

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

MOHAMMED SABIR BABUBHAI SHAIKH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain is not correct, the addition\nmade by the AO sustained. The appeal on these grounds are treated as\ndismissed.\n7. Ground No 3 is directed against the AO charging interest u/s234A, B & 234C.\nInterest under section

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

PUNEET SINGHVI,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA

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)

234C & 234D of the Act. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. 2.1 Apropos Ground of appeals (supra), it is noted that the ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes

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

gained anything and there is no prejudice caused to the department of present dispute as the assessee has merits of its case. In support of this contention the ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the following judicial precedent directly applicable to the facts on the case. The decision so relied are as under: a) Hon’ble Supreme Court