JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Gains earned by the assessee was deposited under Capital\nGains Account scheme wherefrom the amount was paid to the builder [PB\n180-183]. The said document was shown to the Assessing Officer during the\ncourse of assessment proceedings. He was satisfied and hence, no adverse\nview was taken.\n8. That the Assessing Officer passed order disposing objections raised

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 68. 26 RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA 1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have held in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases

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 68.\n1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the\nassessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have\nheld in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases (CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia) SLP\nfiled by the Revenue against

DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) Act of 2009. However, Explanation 3 does not and cannot\noverride the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of section 147.\nAn Explanation to a statutory provision is intended to explain to contents and cannot be\nconstrued to override it or render the substance and core nugatory, Section 147 has this effect\nthat

GOVERDHAN SIGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

section 54F of the Act. It was submitted that in spite of above submissions, the AO has not acceded to assessee’s contentions and has denied the exemption u/s 54F of the Act. 5. It was further submitted that some of the notable facts were not judiciously considered by the AO and/or were not denied by the AO though having

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)

gain on sale of “UTI Transportation and Logistics Fund under section 10(38), and by investment of Rs 1,99,000/- which was made from owned funds as assessee was having availability of ample of owned funds. So, no borrowing cost has been incurred towards purchase of this UTI TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS FUND and other investments which may generate exempt

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

2) and 10B(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 30.12. The ld. A/R of the assessee also submitted that the rates at which power is purchased by distribution companies from generation companies are the rates charged by generation companies to middlemen (i.e. B2B business models) which are governed by altogether different level of market and are therefore not comparable

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

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

SH. ASHOK KUMAR PORWAL,JHALAWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

gain (LTCG) on sale of shares which was claimed as exempt under section 10(38), since said transactions of sale and purchase of shares were admitted by assessee and it had not brought on record anything to suggest that reassessment proceedings were being undertaken in arbitrary manner, impugned reopening notice was justified [2023] 152 taxmann.com

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

253 ITR 454 (Guj.): Interpretation of \ndocuments - Documents must be read as a whole. It is a well settled canon of \ninterpretation that a document has to be read as a whole" it is not permissible to \naccept a part and ignore the rest of the document.\nHissaria Brothers V/s ACIT (Jpr.): 22 Tax World 684 - Held that the seized

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

2, Madhab\nKisto Sett Lane, Kolkata, 700007. In this regard certificate issued by land lord\nShri Santosh Kumar Soni (CIT(A) PBP-101-102) and bill of Rent (CIT(A)\nPBP-99-100) issued to lender company by land lord is enclosed.\n\n(iv) The existence of said place is further evident from copy of bill issued for\nelectricity

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

2 relates to allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 90,55,18,397/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Solid Waste Management System.\n78. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of Pozzolana Portland Cement (PPC) and Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). Apart from using

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. VINOD KUMAR JHARCHUR HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application filed under rule 27

capital gain on sale of house property which was shown at nil after claiming exemption u/s 54 of the Act. Please refer computation of total income which is placed at PB 11-13 The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on dt.28-6-2016 by accepting the exemption

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

253(3), the appeal was to be\nfiled on/before dated 29.09.2024 however, the same has been filed on dated 01.10.2024.\nThus, the appeal was filed with a delay of 2 days.\n2. Reasonable Cause Exist: In this connection, it is humbly submitted that although there\nwas no delay in filing the instant appeal, in as much as the same

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

253 of the IT Act. Therefore, the assessee could have very well file the cross objection after receiving the notice of appeals filed by the revenue against the impugned orders of the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) has not adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee regarding validity of reopening on the reason that the issue of quantum

SHRI KALYAN BUILDMART PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

253 of the IT Act. Therefore, the assessee could have very well file the cross objection after receiving the notice of appeals filed by the revenue against the impugned orders of the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) has not adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee regarding validity of reopening on the reason that the issue of quantum