AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D,\n80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/-, Rs\n1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the\nhead \" Income from House Property\" at Rs 70,000/- thereby declaring net\ntaxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- and refund

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D,\n80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/-, Rs\n1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the\nhead \" Income from House Property\" at Rs 70,000/- thereby declaring net\ntaxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- and refund

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D,\n80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/-, Rs\n1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the\nhead \" Income from House Property\" at Rs 70,000/- thereby declaring net\ntaxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- and refund

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

sections 80C, 80CCF, 80D,\n80DD and 80G to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, 20,000, Rs 15,000/-, Rs\n1,00,000/- and Rs. 24,000/- respectively and further claiming loss under the\nhead \" Income from House Property\" at Rs 70,000/- thereby declaring net\ntaxable income of Rs. 10,58,800/- and refund

AGRASEN PRIMSES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains and\nlosses to the beneficiaries by these operators.\nE. The appellant failed to justify purchase and sale of these shares.\nF. The appellant has not given name of the person who recommended purchase of\nthese shares to the appellant.\nG. The appellant is not even aware about the person after talking with whom the\norder to purchase these shares

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

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

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gain and\naccumulation of income u/s.11(2) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be\ndeleted.\"\nOriginal order in this case was passed\nu/s 143(1) - AO made disallowance for\nPF/ESI by passing rectification order u/s\n154- held AO was not justified – appeal\nof assessee allowed\n65-66\n8\nPrincipal\nCommissioner of\nIncome-tax v. SPPL\nProperty\nManagement

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