BALWANT YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

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

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 The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full.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 the certain issues

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", "234D

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

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)

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

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932 also support this contention. Thus, the 'partnership firm' and partners have been collectively seen and the distinction between the two was removed in the judicial precedents even for taxation purposes. 6.2.3 On the other hand, interest paid on borrowed capital u/s 36(1)(iii) presupposes a transaction between two independent entities, which

RAMA KANT SABOO,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7, BABA SIDDHANATHA BHAWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital asset or personal use. Hence, the same squarely falls within the purview of Section 57(iii). 4. Principle of Real Income and Consistency  In subsequent assessment years, the appellant has duly disclosed and offered for tax foreign exchange gains under the head “Income from Other Sources.” The consistency of such treatment demonstrates transparency and establishes that both  exchange gains

AKSHAT LOYALKA,JAIPUR vs. RJN-C-(101)(1), JAIPUR

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

section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-17. The\nassessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-\n“1. The impugned order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 25.05.2023 is bad in\nlaw and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and\nhence the same kindly

SANTOSH KANWAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO 6(4 ) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Capital gain (LTCG & STCG) para6) (considered under Rs. Nil/- head business & profession) Income from other sources as declared Rs. 10,11,828/- Additions Bogus LTCGclaimed u/s 10(38) held to be income from Rs.19,10,972/- other sources as discussed above (para5) u/s 68 Commission paid for acquiring such accommodation Rs. 1,14,658/- entry as discussed above

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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.’’ 2.1 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee

PRANATI BUILDCON, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT CEN CIR ,KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain, business or profession. 1.2 A combined reading of S. 14 with S. 56 of the Act makes is evidently clear that for the assessment of an income it must have to be classified under four heads of income as enumerated u/s 14 and if it doesn’t fall under any specific head of income as per item

RAJESH KUMAR KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – 2(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 showing calculation of tax and interest chargeable, if any, is attached herewith forming part of this order. Charge interest u/s 234A/ 234B/234C and 234D, if any, a peer rules. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. Rajesh Kumar Khandealwal vs. ITO 7. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred

NARSEE LAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

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

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

234D of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the appellant is wrong and bad in law. Kindly delete the same. 2.1 At the outset of the hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 13 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed a delay condonation application cum written submission praying

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,KOTA vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the Grounds No

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. 3 ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE VS JCIT, RANGE-2, KOTA 2.1 The Ground No.1

RAJNI VINOD MALHOTRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, JAIPUR

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

capital gains. 6. The learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals) has erred in not deciding the ground of appeal disputing the fact that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had not allowed the deduction u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 towards purchase of a new residential property. 7. The learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals) has erred

PARSHWANATH BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

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

234D. Interest u/s 244A is also withdrawn, as per law. A copy of this order along with ITNS 150 which is part of this order is served upon assessee.” 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the Assessee filed an appeal to CIT (A) on 31.05.2021. However, the CIT (A) passed the order dated 27.10.2024 without appreciating the arguments

PARSHAVNATH ASSOCIATES, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT/DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeal filed by separate assessee are allowed in terms of the above observations

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

234D. Interest u/s 244A is also withdrawn, as per law. A copy of this order along with ITNS 150 which is part of this order is served upon assessee.” 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the Assessee filed an appeal to CIT (A) on 31.05.2021. However, the CIT (A) passed the order dated 27.10.2024 without appreciating the arguments

HIRALAL VIJAWAT , BHAWANIMANDI,BHAWANIMANDI vs. ACIT / DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA, KOTA

234D. Interest u/s 244A is also withdrawn, as per law. A\r\ncopy of this order along with ITNS 150 which is part of this order is served upon\r\nassessee. A notice of demand u/s 156 of the Act and challan for payment of tax, if\r\npayable, is hereby issued. Penalty u/s 271AAC of the Income