RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

260A - Whether since question of applicability\nof section 143(2) was specifically raised throughout but, prima facie, no finding\nbased on law had been recorded matter was to be remitted to High Court for\nfresh decision in accordance with law - Held, yes\n[2025] 171 taxmann.com 572 (Raipur - Trib.) Balbir Singh v. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income-tax\nSection

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

260A - Whether since question of applicability\nof section 143(2) was specifically raised throughout but, prima facie, no finding\nbased on law had been recorded matter was to be remitted to High Court for\nfresh decision in accordance with law - Held, yes\n[2025] 171 taxmann.com 572 (Raipur - Trib.) Balbir Singh v. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income-tax\nSection

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

260A - Whether since question of applicability\nof section 143(2) was specifically raised throughout but, prima facie, no finding\nbased on law had been recorded matter was to be remitted to High Court for\nfresh decision in accordance with law - Held, yes\n[2025] 171 taxmann.com 572 (Raipur - Trib.) Balbir Singh v. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income-tax\nSection

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

260A - Whether since question of applicability\nof section 143(2) was specifically raised throughout but, prima facie, no finding\nbased on law had been recorded matter was to be remitted to High Court for\nfresh decision in accordance with law - Held, yes\n[2025] 171 taxmann.com 572 (Raipur - Trib.) Balbir Singh v. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income-tax\nSection

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

capital gain on Rs. 31,565/- earned on sale of mutual funds. The appellant has further claimed deduction under chapter VI-A of the Act to the extent of Rs. 2,40,698/- thereby declaring net taxable income at Rs. 15,53,040/-. The appellant was specifically required to furnish detailed bank account statement along with explanation regarding the source

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

capital gains except in the case of assessee for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16 was declared. This further proves that the addition is made on mere conjecture and surmises without any corroborative material. It is a settled law that the presumption whosoever strong may be but it cannot take place of proof 14 ITA 256/JP/2018_ Sh. Ashok Dharendra

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)

capital expenditure. The expenditure must not be personal in nature or an allowance of the character described in sections 30 to 36 In the instant case, the fact that the expenditure is not personal in nature has not been doubted at all. Needless to say, this expenditure has not been dealt with in any of the provisions from section

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)

capital expenditure. The expenditure must not be personal in nature or an allowance of the character described in sections 30 to 36 In the instant case, the fact that the expenditure is not personal in nature has not been doubted at all. Needless to say, this expenditure has not been dealt with in any of the provisions from section

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

capital and what is an outgoing on account of revenue depends on what the expenditure is calculated to effect from a practical and business point of view rather than upon the juristic classification of the legal rights, if any, secured, employed or exhausted in the process. The question must be viewed in the larger context of business necessity or expediency

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. PUJA SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

gain of Rs. 12,79,180/- and in the profit before the tax is only Rs. 10,79,909/-. Thus from these financial information it is very well evident that the investor company is the shell paper company. The ld. DR also drawn our attention to page 169, and argued that there is no stock movement in the financial year

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

260A of the Act. The\nappeal had been admitted on two substantial questions relating to whether an\naddition of undisclosed income may be made on the basis of loose sheets found\nin the search, particularly when the assessee therein had accepted, in his sworn\nstatement, that the information contained in the sheets reflected his undisclosed\nincome. In that case

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Section 10 of The General Clauses Act, 1897 which specifies that where any act etc. is to be done within a prescribed period by any Central Act or Regulation and if the court/ office is closed on that day then the act etc. shall be considered as done in due time if it is done the next day on which

BABUDEEN AND PARTY,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

capital by the members of assessee AOP was deleted. In second appeal department challenged the trading addition reduced to Rs.5,00,000/-. This Hon’ble ITAT enhanced trading addition to Rs.70,00,000/-. Against the order of Hon’ble ITAT, the assessee as well as the Deptt. both preferred appeal under sec. 260A of IT Act before

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

Capital Region (NCR). Although SEBI was already investigating this issue and was already onto it. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) levied a total penalty of over Rs 55 lakh on nine entities for fraudulent trading in illiquid stock options of the BSE. The action had come after the regulator conducted an investigation into the trading activity

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

260A has been recommended for AY 2015-16. On this issue, further appeal before the Hon'ble High Court is pending for the A.Y. 2014-15 to 2018-19. e) Allowability of Indexation benefit on transfer of Long Term Capital Asset This issue has not been taken into consideration in the assessment proceedings for past assessment years. Hence, no further