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

6% of the bogus Long Term Capital Gains entry, which is\nrestricted to 4% which comes to Rs 123686 rounded to 123680. Commission\npaid in lieu of entry of bogus Long Term Capital Gain was added to the total\nincome for the year under consideration u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961\nbeing unexplained expenditure incurred

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

Capital Gain Exemption under Section 10(38) The Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT (A) wrongly denied the LTCG exemption under Section 10(38) by presuming the share transactions were non-genuine without concrete evidence. The transactions were properly executed, as shown by contract notes, Demat statements, bank transactions, and STT compliance. Courts have consistently ruled that in the absence

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)

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. 1.23The ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the evidences and details submitted, confirmed the action of the ld. AO by primarily quoting numerous case laws on human probabilities, however again no defect whatsoever was pointed out in the documentary evidences furnished by assessee and these documentary evidences were not rebutted

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

section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.\n1.23The ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the evidences and details submitted, confirmed the action\nof the ld. AO by primarily quoting numerous case laws on human probabilities, however again\nno defect whatsoever was pointed out in the documentary evidences furnished by assessee and\nthese documentary evidences were not rebutted

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.

6,1991, and another on May 29, 1991, for a total sum of Rs. 5,56,000. The capital gain came to Rs. 1,40,000. In the 14 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR original return, the assessee claimed that as he has purchased the immovable property against the consideration received on the sale of house property

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

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

capital gains, and denied exemptions for investments in new agricultural land and a residential house.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the Tehsildar's certificates regarding the distance of the agricultural lands from municipal limits should be considered. The AO's reliance on photocopies and an incomplete interpretation of the certificates was found to be incorrect. The Tribunal also ruled that

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

250(4) if prima facie an information is necessary to examine the\nclaim of the assessee. Similarly, the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay\nHigh Court has been followed in DCIT vs. Pradeep Oxygen (P) Ltd\n(2001) 71 TTJ 662\nIn view of the above, this contention of the appellant is accepted and\nthe data available in public domain

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

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

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

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

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. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

6,89,158.00\n(-) Rs. 3,09,380.00\nRs. 3,79,778.00\n(B) (1) Villa's in scheme sold (Total 50C value) Rs. 53,50,000.00\n(2) Assess's Share 20% therein\n(3) Less Cost 20% details as per chart (163590+874950) -)\n10,38,540.00\nRs.\nLTC Gain on Villa 20%\nRs. 31,460.00\n(C) Total