BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain and added Rs.123680/-\nBrief facts of the order:\nThe assessee aggrieved with the order of the Ld AO has filed appeal with CIT (A)\non 12/12/2017 The CIT(A) under faceless regime had issued notice of hearing on\n01/11/2022 and 27/07/2023. The assessee has complied with the notice and\nsubmitted its detailed reply incorporating the facts and relevant

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

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 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, [Here in after referred as “Act” ] by the AO. 2 Federation of Rajasthan Trade & Industry 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:- “1) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in holding and sustaining the addition of Rs. 57,50,287/ under the head of capital gain

CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - Ground No. 1: Disallowance of Long-Term Capital Gain Exemption under Section

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

capital gain. 16 RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA 1.13 It is further submitted that the various observations and the conclusions drawn by the AO in the assessment are based on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. It is trite law that suspicion however strong cannot partake the character of legal evidence (Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika

MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , KOTA

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.\n1.23 The ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the evidences and details submitted,\nconfirmed the action of the ld. AO by primarily quoting numerous case laws on\nhuman probabilities, however again no defect whatsoever was pointed out in the\ndocumentary evidences furnished by assessee and these documentary evidences\nwere not rebutted

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

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

capital gain.\n1.16 It is further submitted that the various observations and the conclusions drawn by the AO in\nthe assessment are based on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. It is trite law that suspicion\nhowever strong cannot partake the character of legal evidence (Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika\nRam vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 SC). The suspicion or presumption, however strong

SHIVA CORPORATION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CC-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

gain of Rs.38,56,889/-.\n4. Feeling dissatisfied with that finding of the Id. AO, the\nassessee challenged that order before the Id. CIT(A). The bench\nnoted that in that proceeding assessee furnished data taken from\nthe google regarding population of Village GhariJaju and\nJorashiKhalasa. Ld. CIT(A) sought the remand report from Id. AO\nwherein Id. AO objected

SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

capital gain tax, it was duty of the assessee as an agent and representative assessee of the seller which assessee failed to make payment of tax.” which in effect, demonstrate consistent application of and in continuation of the earlier orders passed in the capacity of the representative assessee. Further, as rightly pointed out by the ld CIT(A), mere mentioning

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

capital gain tax, it was duty of the assessee as an agent and representative assessee of the seller which assessee failed to make payment of tax.” which in effect, demonstrate consistent application of and in continuation of the earlier orders passed in the capacity of the representative assessee. Further, as rightly pointed out by the ld CIT(A), mere mentioning

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The impugned order u/s. 143(3) dated 30.11.2018 is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be quashed. 2. Deduction claimed

RAJRANI SINGHAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

section 45(1) of Income Tax\nAct' 1961 states “Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a\nCAPITAL ASSET” shall be chargeable to Income Tax under the\nhead \"CAPITAL GAIN\".\nWhereas the A.O. & CIT(A) both have considered “SALE VALUE”\nas “CAPITAL GAIN”, whereas complete details were filed to A.O.\nduring assessment proceedings / u/sec. 154 even sale deed

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

section 250\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2014-15. The grounds raised in\nthe appeal are reproduced as under :-\n1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT(A) is wrong,\nunjust and has erred in law in upholding finding recorded by the Id AO that\nagricultural land

GANPATLAL AGARWAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

section 45(1) of Income Tax\nAct' 1961 states “Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a\nCAPITAL ASSET” shall be chargeable to Income Tax under the\nhead "CAPITAL GAIN”.\nWhereas the A.O. & CIT(A) both have considered “SALE VALUE”\nas “CAPITAL GAIN”, whereas complete details were filed to A.O.\nduring assessment proceedings / u/sec. 154 even sale deed

GANPATLAL AGARWAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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 45(1) of Income Tax Act’ 1961 states “Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a CAPITAL ASSET” shall be chargeable to Income Tax under the head “CAPITAL GAIN”. Whereas the A.O. & CIT(A) both have considered “SALE VALUE” as “CAPITAL GAIN”, whereas complete details were filed to A.O. during assessment proceedings / u/sec. 154 even sale deed

GANPATLAL AGARWAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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 45(1) of Income Tax Act’ 1961 states “Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a CAPITAL ASSET” shall be chargeable to Income Tax under the head “CAPITAL GAIN”. Whereas the A.O. & CIT(A) both have considered “SALE VALUE” as “CAPITAL GAIN”, whereas complete details were filed to A.O. during assessment proceedings / u/sec. 154 even sale deed

RAJRANI SINGHAL,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

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 45(1) of Income Tax Act’ 1961 states “Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a CAPITAL ASSET” shall be chargeable to Income Tax under the head “CAPITAL GAIN”. Whereas the A.O. & CIT(A) both have considered “SALE VALUE” as “CAPITAL GAIN”, whereas complete details were filed to A.O. during assessment proceedings / u/sec. 154 even sale deed

GANPATLAL AGARWAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

section 45(1) of Income Tax\nAct' 1961 states “Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a\nCAPITAL ASSET” shall be chargeable to Income Tax under the\nhead \"CAPITAL GAIN\".\nWhereas the A.O. & CIT(A) both have considered “SALE VALUE”\nas “CAPITAL GAIN”, whereas complete details were filed to A.O.\nduring assessment proceedings / u/sec. 154 even sale deed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16.\n2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :-\n\"1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was right in allowing assessee's appeal without appreciating the fact that the AO has recorded reasons after analyzing

RAJRANI SINGHAL,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes

section 45(1) of Income Tax\nAct' 1961 states “Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a\nCAPITAL ASSET” shall be chargeable to Income Tax under the\nhead \"CAPITAL GAIN”.\nWhereas the A.O. & CIT(A) both have considered “SALE VALUE”\nas “CAPITAL GAIN”, whereas complete details were filed to A.O.\nduring assessment proceedings / u/sec. 154 even sale deed