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)

2 of order passed u/s 263 the ld PCIT assumed wrong facts by mentioning that the assessee has admitted that its case is covered by the provisions of section14A of the Act and also the explanatory circular of CBDT No.5/2014. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee never admitted that its case is covered by the provisions of section

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

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

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

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

gain any benefit because of the delayed finding and his conduct was not contumacious. 5. That keeping in view the difficulties faced by lawyers and litigants across the country in filing appeals/applications etc. due to the lockdown, the Apex court of India passed an order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo motu Writ Appeal (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 on the issue

M/S RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPEMENT PVT. LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

gain any benefit because of the delayed finding and his conduct was not contumacious. 5. That keeping in view the difficulties faced by lawyers and litigants across the country in filing appeals/applications etc. due to the lockdown, the Apex court of India passed an order dated 23.03.2020 in Suo motu Writ Appeal (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 on the issue

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

2 of section 263 of the Act and thereby the\nassessment order was set aside as per provisions of section 263\nof the Act.\n5. Feeling aggrieved from the above order of PCIT, the\nassessee has challenged the finding of Id. PCIT on three grounds,\ni.e. invoking the jurisdiction, Liability does not arise for TDS and tax\nrate

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

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)

Section 55(2)(aa)(iiia) of the Act while computing the taxability under the head Capital Gain. However, the said shares shall be recognized differently in the Books of Accounts i.e., as prescribed under Accounting Standard 13 (‘AS-13’). AS-13 deals with the Accounting for Investments. As per the provisions of AS-13, the cost of investments

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

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

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

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

2. Under section 54F in the case of an assessee if any capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house and the assessee has, within a period of one year before or two year after the date of which the transfer took place purchased a residential house, the capital gain shall

RENU PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. The only issue raised by ld. PCIT is with regards to the amount of deduction u/s 54F for which the assessee was eligible. 3. It is submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and the issues identified for examination were [PB 72-73]: 3.1. Deduction/ Exemption from Capital Gains 9 Smt. Renu Poddar

SH. SURENDER MEENA,36, PRATAP NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 17.12.2019. 2. The assessee has assailed following ground in this appeal:- 2 Sh. Surender Meena vs. PCIT “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 is illegal & bad in law and the same be quashed. 2

ARUN KUMAR PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PR CIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

SHRI RADHA GOVIND LASHKARI,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2,11,779/- i.e. 3 % of Rs. 70,59,315/- was also added to the income of the assessee as commission paid as per provision of section 69C of the Act. 6 Nirmal Kumar Agrawal vs. DCIT 4. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos