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)

capital gains in his hands - Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour of assessee]” 5. CIT(A)/NFAC did not act as per Law: The CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits which is contradictory to the mandate of Section 250(6). The same is reproduced here under for your ready reference: “(6) The order of the Commissioner (Appeals

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

gain (LTCG) on sale of shares which was claimed as exempt under section 10(38), since said transactions of sale and purchase of shares were admitted by assessee and it had not brought on record anything to suggest that reassessment proceedings were being undertaken in arbitrary manner, impugned reopening notice was justified [2023] 152 taxmann.com

SHRI RITESH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAB of the Act against the surrendered amount of Rs. 7,22,00,000/- by issuing show cause notice dated 28th March, 2016 and 12.08.2016. The assessee raised the objections against the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAB as well as the levy of penalty before the AO. However

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

capital gain. Record reveals that against the said disallowance of cost of acquisition the assessee has not challenged that quantum addition made by the ld.AO and since that being the fact the ld. AO for the said disallowance initiated penalty proceeding as per the provision of section 270A of the Act and thereby ordered to levy the penalty

SHRI HARI RAM YADAV,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

gain on sale of agricultural land without considering the fact that the same was not capital asset U/s 2(14) of the I.T. Act and also not allowing the deduction U/s 54B for purchase of another agricultural land. Thereafter, notice U/s 263 was issued by the ITO(Technical) for and on behalf of ld Pr CIT, Alwar dated

SHRI KRISHNA YADAV,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

capital gain and civil contract work. A search was conducted on 4th /5th September, 2013 in the case of the assessee. During the course of search and seizure action, certain incriminating material were found and seized which include a black colour note book containing certain entries at pages 1 to 13. The assessee was asked to explain the entries

SHRI SURESH CHAND MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

capital gain and income from other sources. A search was conducted in case of Okay Plus JKD Group at the residential and business premises of the assessee group on 4th September, 2013. The assessee disclosed in the statement under section 132(4) an undisclosed income of Rs. 1,03,60,000/-. The assessee filed his return of income

HARI NARAIN PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

capital gain and other sources. A search u/s 132 took place on 07-01-2016in the case of Dilip Maihar Group in which assessee was also covered. The assessment u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 153B (1) (b) of I. T. Act, 1961 was completed on 29-12-2017. Action of Ld. A.O. The Ld. A.O. in the assessment order initiated

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

capital gain and other sources. A search u/s 132 took place on 07-01-2016in the case of Dilip Maihar Group in which assessee was also covered. The assessment u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 153B (1) (b) of I. T. Act, 1961 was completed on 29-12-2017. Action of Ld. A.O. The Ld. A.O. in the assessment order initiated

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

capital gains are applicable on such sale of land. The assessee had not filed his return of income and also not paid tax on sale of immovable property and therefore, there are reasons to believe that the income to the extent of Rs. 53,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and accordingly

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

capital gains are applicable on such sale of land. The assessee had not filed his return of income and also not paid tax on sale of immovable property and therefore, there are reasons to believe that the income to the extent of Rs. 53,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act and accordingly

BABUDEEN AND PARTY,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital by the members of assessee AOP was deleted. In second appeal department challenged the trading addition reduced to Rs.5,00,000/-. This Hon’ble ITAT enhanced trading addition to Rs.70,00,000/-. Against the order of Hon’ble ITAT, the assessee as well as the Deptt. both preferred appeal under sec. 260A of IT Act before

M/S RANWA LAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,4, D-VILLA, STATION ROAD, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

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

246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact w.e.f 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the AO and restore