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

UDAI SINGH RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

250. Hence, the ld. AR has submitted that in the absence of any cost of acquisition of the land in question no capital gain is chargeable. 5 Shri Udai Singh Rathore vs. ITO, Jaipur 6. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the decisions relied upon by the ld. AR have been distinguished by the Full Bench

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

SITA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

6% of the amount of sale proceeds of bogus share transaction and the assessee had not offered any explanation about the source of the same. Thus the 16 SMT SITA DEVI AGARWAL VS ITO, WARD 4(1), JAIPUR AO made two additions namely Rs.23,23,696/- u/s 68 and Rs. 1,45,421/- u/s 69C of the Act respectively

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

250/-. The AO observed that the assessee has sold the agricultural land whereas the deduction under section 54 is allowable on sale of residential house. The AO further noted that the agricultural land has been sold by the assessee vide single sale deed and, therefore, the agricultural land and construction thereon was considered as single unit in the said sale

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

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

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

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

SMT. VANITA TEKRIWAL,FLAT NO.715, SUN N MOON BELVEDERE PARK, SWAGE FARM CIRCLE, NEW SANGANER ROAD, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

sections 3d 3778270 54/54B/54D/54EC/54F/54G/54GA e Net balance (3c-3d) 3e Nil However, ‘0’ is shown in Part B-TI, column 4(b) (PB 14) and in Schedule CYLA, row no. (v) (PB 22) which shows that data of Schedule CG of the return was not ported in the department software whereas it was filled by the assessee. (g) Apart from

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

VIRENDRA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, ITA No. 302/JP/2017 is dismissed and ITA No

250/-. Both these assessees computed long term capital gain on sale of their agricultural land at Nil after claiming deduction U/s 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the agriculture was being carried over in Khasra No. 887 measuring 1.10 hectare. However, no agriculture activities were carried

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

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