VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , 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. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

Section 263 shall extend to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the assessment passed U/s 143(3) dated 26/12/2017 has so far not been considered or decided by the ld. CIT(A), therefore, the objection of the assessee that no proceeding U/s 263

BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

capital gain and accumulation of income u/s 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be deleted. (Emphasis Supplied] 1.6. Further, attention is also drawn towards the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in matter of Vinod Malik [ITA no. 1635/Del/2021: Assessment Year 2019-20 dated 25.11.2022] wherein it was held that 7. Failure to adhere

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

capital gain, business or profession. 2.2 A combined reading of S. 14 with S. 56 of the Act makes is evidently clear that for the assessment of an income it must have to be classified under four heads of income as enumerated u/s 14 and if it doesn’t fall under any specific head of income as per item

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

1) of section 10 of the Depositories Act, 1996, and for the purposes of— (i) section 48; and (ii) proviso to clause (42A) of section 2, the cost of acquisition and the period of holding of any securities shall be determined on the basis of the first-in-first-out method.” CIRCULAR NO. 768,DATED 24-6-1998 This

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 Equity oriented Mutual Fund in which total fund invest was Rs. 1,99,000 only. The assessee was neither incurred any expenditure to earn this exempt nor claimed any expenditure in return of income. 2. As per the provisions of section 14A of Income Tax Act,1961 and rules 8D of Income Tax Rules 1962 which

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

capital gain and\nincome from other source.\n3. That the Return of Income for A.Y. 2018-19 was filed on\n30.11.2018 declaring a Total Income of Rs.597,94,66,280/-. A Revised\nReturn of Income was filed on 29.03.2019 declaring a Total Income of\nRs.593,12,42,630/-.\n4. That, the assessee's case was thereafter selected for the\nscrutiny

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

Capital Gain\narising from the sale of the residential house for Rs 69.90 lacs on 28.07.2017 but then\nfinally in draft assessment order he sifted to the addition made u/s 69A of the Act. In the\nimpugned assessment order he invoked S.69A first but at the end he made addition on\naccount of LTCG.\n3.1.4 From this what emerges

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 gains which are tax exempted. In the instant case the shares were acquired by the assessee of a paper company and then that merged into a listed entity and the most interesting part is that the assessee got 38 shares of a listed company against each share of a non- listed company and then all the beneficiaries had exited

VIPUL KUMAR MODI ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR -I

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

sections 144B of the Act dated 23.03.2022. 2 Vipul Kumar Modi vs. PCIT 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1 Ground1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax grossly erred in passing an order u/s. 263 of the Act and in holding that

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

capital gain, business or profession. The\nrelevant provision is reproduced hereinbelow :\n1.\nS. 115BBE\"(1) Where the total income of an assessee,\nincludes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section\n69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the\nreturn of income furnished under section 139; or 2. determined by\nthe Assessing Officer includes

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

Capital Gain of Rs.3,78,74,469/- (PB5). 2. In the first round, the case was selected for scrutiny supposedly, on the issue of examination of LTCG. Notices u/s 143(2) dt.18.09.2015 and thereafter notice u/s 142(1) were issued time to time which were duly replied and assessment was completed vide order

NARESH KUMAR BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Section 263. Decision paper book Index S. No. Particulars Page No. Order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Software 1 to 5 1. Consultants- [2012] 341 ITR 240 Order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Prosperous 6 to 10 2. Buildcon (P.) Ltd.- [2024] 463 ITR132 Order of Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

gain from sale of flat—Assessee has reflected that same in its capital account—Further in response to letter issued by AO during assessment proceedings, assessee submitted his reply explaining reason for increase in capital—However, Pr. CIT exercising jurisdiction under section 263, directed AO to make fresh assessment on issues which were not subject matter of limited scrutiny—Since

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Capital Gain 15,72,409/- 58-62 Offered in IDS At this juncture, reliance is placed on decision of Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Killick Nixon Ltd., Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, wherein it has been held as under: “As far as the provisions of KVSS are concerned, we agree with the contention

BHARATPUR ROYAL FAMILY RELIGIOUS & CEREMONIAL TRUST,BHARATPUR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR

In the result, we upheld the order of the ld PCIT in exercise of his powers u/s 263 in setting aside the order so passed by the AO and the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are hereby dismissed

gain arising from such transfer would be assessed as per the provisions of Chapter IV of the IT Act. Therefore, the applicability of the provisions of section 50C depends whether the real consideration on transfer of the property held in Trust is utilized for acquiring the new capital asset to be held as property held under Trust

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

capital receipt - HELD THAT:- The entire show cause notice that the initiation of revision is premised only on the report submitted by the AO requesting for the revision of the assessment order. During an earlier hearing, the ld. DR was directed to produce the said report of the AO forming part of the show cause notice. DR produced the file

SHREE AURO IRON LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

1) of Section 263\n1.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.\n[2018) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd.- Trib)\n2. Eveready Industries India\nLtd. [2020] 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata\nTrib)\n3. M/s. Smira Pune Food Pvt. Ltd(ITA\nNo.3205/DEL/2017, ITAT Delhi\nBench.\n4. Shri Narayan TatuRane, ITA\nNo2690/Mum/2016, ITAT Mumbai\nBench\nCase was selected for scrutiny for specific purpose\nfor verification of capital gain

GIRIRAJ PRASAD,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUNDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain. The assessee had acquired a right to get a particular flat\nfrom the builder and that right of the assessee itself is a capital asset. The word\n'held' used in Section 2 (14) as well as Explanation to Section 48 clearly depicts\nthat assessee must have some right in the capital asset which is subject to transfer