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)

capital gain was calculated by the AO to the tune of Rs.57,50,287/-. Moreover, the return of income was filed after the due date invoking the provisions of section u/s 139(3). Hence, I find no merit in the contention. Accordingly, I am inclined to interfere with the decision of the AO taken on this ground. Ground

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.

capital gains tax, but that cannot be a case of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. If it has claimed any exemption after disclosing the relevant basic facts and under ignorance of the provisions of the Act of 1961, and not offered that amount for tax, in such cases, penalty should not be imposed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

capital gains.\nAggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur–4 “CIT(A)”. The appeal was allowed vide\norder dated 31.12.2024. The Id. CIT(A) deleted the addition made under Section 153A\non the ground that the assessment for the said year had already attained finality and no\nincriminating material

M/S TRIMURTY BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1194/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 601, Geeta Enclave, Vinobha Ward 2(2) Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabct 7285 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rohan Sogani (Ca) & Shri Rajeev Sogani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 23/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- I, Jaipur Dated 13/09/2018 For The A.Y. 2013-14 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. (A) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Enhancing The Income By Disallowing Interest Expenditure Of Rs. 53,78,282. The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please Be Granted By Allowing The Said Expenditure Of Rs. 53,78,282. (B) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Exercising The Powers Of Enhancement Under Section 251(1)(A).

Section 28 which falls under the head Profits and Gains from Business and Profession. 1.27 The borrowings from Shri Udai Kant Mishra, on which interest expenses were incurred by the assessee company in the current and the preceding years, were all parked in various Fixed Assets, at different points of time during the current and the preceding years. None

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

capital gains. IV. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur–4 “CIT(A)”. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 31.12.2024. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made under Section 153A on the ground that the assessment for the said year had already attained finality and no incriminating

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

capital gains. IV. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur–4 “CIT(A)”. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 31.12.2024. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made under Section 153A on the ground that the assessment for the said year had already attained finality and no incriminating

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

ABDUL AZIZ,DUDU vs. ITO WARD 7(3), LAL KOTHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

251 and Section 252 of the Act have also been\nworded keeping the same spirit, as also Rule 46A. Section 250(4) empowers the CIT(A) to\nmake further inquiries on its own or to direct the AO to make further inquiry and to report to\nhim. The embargo put on his power under Rule

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Capital gains - Special\nprovision for computation of full value of consideration in certain cases [Reference\nto Valuation Officer] - Assessment year 2009-10 - Assessee earned short term\ncapital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before Assessing Officer\nthat value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority was higher than fair\nmarket value - Value adopted by stamp valuation authority

MUSTAFA KATTHAWALA,KOTA vs. DCIT ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1156/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16\nMustafa Katthawala\nProp. Shakti Steels, Near Reliance\nPetrol Pump Jhalawar Road, IPIA\nKota.-324005.\nबनाम | The DCIT/ACIT,\nVs.\nCircle-2,\nKota.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGPPK5043C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओर से / Reven

gain of Rs.\n1,71,87,500/- (12.50% of Rs.13,75,00,000/-) for the relevant year stating\nthat:\n1. S. 45(2) of the Act is not applicable since capital asset is not treated as\nstock in trade since the asset were not transferred gather given to Tirupati\nInfraprojects for development project.\n2. The Id. AO alleged that

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

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

251 of the Act. 2. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 42,00,40,000 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

251 of the Act. 2. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 42,00,40,000 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

capital gains.\n\nIV.\nAggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur–4 “CIT(A)”. The appeal was allowed vide\norder dated 31.12.2024. The Id. CIT(A) deleted the addition made under Section 153A\non the ground that the assessment for the said year had already attained finality

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

MUKESH KUMAR JAJORIYA,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WD 2(3), JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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)

251 Taxman 31(Raj), wherein it was held that: "Capital gains- Agricultural land-Scope and application of CBDT notification No. 9447 dated 6th Jan, 1994 under s. 2(14)(ii) (b) Tribunal was justified in law in holding that agriculture land sold by the assessee is not a capital asset under s 2(14)(iii) (b) as it was situated

RAJESH GUPTA,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(2), KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

gains of investment in shares. Therefore, the assessee's activity of share transactions are determined as trading of shares and applying the provisions of section 44AD(1) of the Act for the returned turnover of Rs. 28,35,802 and estimates a deemed income at Rs. 2,26,864 @ 8% of such returned turnover. Thus, the assessee has not disclosed