SH. DAL CHAND SHARMA,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

Capital Gain of Rs. 62,00,000/- is made,\nhowever the assessee sold the said Property for Rs. 31,00,000/-\nonly. As per assessment order the Id. AO has reopened the case\nunder section 148 on dated 27.03 2022 information fagged by the\nrisk management strategy formulated in this regard suggesting that\nincome chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

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

249, made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Club Expenses Department has also challenged the impugned order whereby Learned CIT(A) has deleted addition of Rs. 4,20,337/-, made by the Assessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club expenses. Loans and advances Department has also

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

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

249, made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Club Expenses Department has also challenged the impugned order whereby Learned CIT(A) has deleted addition of Rs. 4,20,337/-, made by the Assessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club expenses. Loans and advances Department has also

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

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

249, made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Club Expenses Department has also challenged the impugned order whereby Learned CIT(A) has deleted addition of Rs. 4,20,337/-, made by the Assessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club expenses. Loans and advances Department has also

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

Capital Gains. 8. On the facts & circumstances of the case Ld. CIT (A) also grossly erred in not fully accepting additional evidence filled by the assessee. 9. On the facts & circumstances of the case and law also ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in not admitting the agreement to sale dated 22.01.2006 as an addition evidence under rule

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

capital, etc., and from the documents searched/ seized, it is alleged that assessee is one of the beneficiaries. Based on this information the ld. AO recorded reasons to believe that, certain income had escaped tax, and accordingly initiated the reassessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s 148 on 21.3.2015 and passed the reassessment order by increasing the assessed income with

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

capital, etc., and from the documents searched/ seized, it is alleged that assessee is one of the beneficiaries. Based on this information the ld. AO recorded reasons to believe that, certain income had escaped tax, and accordingly initiated the reassessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s 148 on 21.3.2015 and passed the reassessment order by increasing the assessed income with

GOVERDHAN SIGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

3 Shri Goverdhan Singh Shekhawat vs. ITO deposit in that account. The bank itself has confirmed the fact of opening up of capital gain account which is appearing in the certificate issued by the bank and has been placed on record. It was further submitted that the assessee was not assisted by any tax consultant at the time of opening

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

capital transaction in its regular books of accounts and payments against the purchases and expenditure were made in cash and no relaxation can be given for the illegal activities. He further held that he has not rejected the parallel and duplicate books of accounts maintained by the assessee and judicial decisions relied upon by the assessee are not applicable

MUNNI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, JAIPUR

section 143 (3) of the Act. Recently the Madras High Court in case of\nCIT Vs. Adhinitha Foundation P. Ltd. (2017) 249 Taxman 37 – Copy of submitted after\nconsidering and analyzing various judgements on the issue held that “the power of\nentertaining the claim vests with the Appellate Authorities based on the facts and\ncircumstances of the case. The power

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

249 (SC)\n": "It is now well accepted that this Chapter is a complete code in\nitself providing for self-contained machinery for assessment of undisclosed\nincome for the block period of 10 years or 6 years, as the case may be.\nIn case of regular assessments for which returns are filed on yearly\nbasis, section

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain (LTCG, in short) of Rs.\n1,37,83,051/- declared by assessee on account of sale of shares of M/s Splash Media\n& Infra Ltd(SMIL) now known as M/s Luharuka Media & Infra Ltd in her return of\nincome as bogus and further addition of Rs.8,51,610/- was made u/s 69C by alleging\nthe same as payment

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

capital gain on sale of the land. Now the assessee has filed appeal before us. Ground nos. 1 & 2 are inter-connected and inter-related and challenging the validity of reopening of the case of the assessee under section 147 read with section 148 being not in accordance with the provisions of section 151 of the IT Act. 3. Before

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

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

249-274/Vol-2. Appeal filed by the revenue before Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur was dismissed. Copy of the order of Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur is at PB page 275-277/ Vol-2. (iii) AY 2017-18 The assessment of immediate preceding year AY 2017-18 was completed u/s 143(3) wherein no addition u/s 14A was made. The copy

SMT. LAKSHMI AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no orders as to costs

Bench: recording satisfaction for issuance of notice since the information is specific. Thus the reasons recorded for re-opening is on borrowed satisfaction and not on any satisfaction by the AO. The

gain against the loss incurred in other shares. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming addition made by AO u/s 69C of the Act by holding that the assessee has paid Rs.84,300/- being 6% of the sale proceeds of the shares as commission. 2.1 The Ground No. 1 of the assessee relates

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

capital gain has accrued to the assessee. CIT (A) further held that funds received by the assessee is unaccounted income of the assessee and chargeable to tax u/s 68 of the act. On the matrix as held by the Honorable Delhi high court the above issue falls within the scope of the provision of section