DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The respondent craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 33 ITA No. 264

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore no capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The respondent craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them. 33 ITA No. 264

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain of Rs.15,72,409/- and not on entire value of transactions i.e. 86,31,724/-. Appellant prays that shares were purchased Online, through banking channels and were duly recorded in books of accounts, thus source of the same was explained and addition so made is absolutely unwarranted and deserves to be deleted. 3.1 That, Ld.CIT(A) has further erred

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

264 Taxman 287 (SC)(31-08-2018).\nRelevant extract from Shri Ram Singh's case is reproduced hereunder- (copy annexed as\nAnnexure-22)\n\nIt is only when in proceedings under section 147 the Assessing Officer assesses or reassesses any\nincome chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for any assessment year, with respect to\nwhich he had \"reason

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

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

264 ITR Facts of the case law relied upon are entirely 435 different, in this case law relied upon by department, the assessee made claim of gift, which he was unable to substantiate. Whereas, in the case of the Assessee, the claim of capital gain has been duly established and substantiated, therefore, onus of the Assessee has been duly discharged

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

SHRI VISHNU PRASAD,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, 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. 1503/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Vishnu Prasad, D.C.I.T. Vs. Namdev Export, Circle-7, Opp.-Dhanopia Textiles, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aappp 9225 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Smt. Rooni Paul(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 30/10/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 30,50,000/- Made By A.O. U/S 68 Alleging Cash Deposits In Bank Account As Undisclosed Income. 1.1 That, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 30,50,000/- Ignoring The Submission Of Assessee That The Said Amount Represented Sale Consideration Received By Assessee For Sale Of Land.

Capital Gain offered by assessee. In the scenario, there was no reason to not accept the fact that cash deposits of Rs.30.50 lacs in the bank account of assessee were made out of plot sold and thus the source of deposits was duly explained. It has been held by various Courts and it is settled law that assessee

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

gain tax, but that cannot be a case\nof penalty under s.271(1)(c). If it has claimed any exemption after\ndisclosing the relevant basic facts and under the ignorance of the\nprovision of the Act, and not offered that amount for tax, in such cases,\npenalty should not be imposed. In such cases rather it is the duty

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct. (Emphasis Supplied) In the following cases the excess stock was upheld as taxable in the context of section 69/698 of the Act:- In the case of Neeraj Agrawal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2023] 152 taxmann.com 632 (Allahabad-Trib.) it is held

RAJENDRA KUMAR MEENA,GANGAPUR vs. ITO WARD-2 SAWAMADHOPUR, GANGAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

264 ITR 363) (SC), the Commissioner (Appeals) quashed the notice under section 148 of the Act, and the same having been upheld by Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court. Aggrieved by the High Court, Revenue filed an appeal before the Supreme Court which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Here is the case of the assessee

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

VISHNU PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), JAIPUR

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

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

Capital Gain earned on sale of plot number 40, Shivpuri, Jhotwara, Jaipur situated at and taxed in his hands accordingly.” 6 Vishnu Pareek vs. CIT(A) On further appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 17.05.2019 held as under: “I have carefully considered the reason for condonation delay. I find that the reason given

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain. Record reveals that against the said disallowance of cost of acquisition the assessee has not challenged that quantum addition made by the ld.AO and since that being the fact the ld. AO for the said disallowance initiated penalty proceeding as per the provision of section 270A of the Act and thereby ordered to levy the penalty

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

capital gain while filing the "Original return of income". 4.3. The Appellant at this juncture, the Appellant would like to draw your attention towards the provisions of S.148 of the Act, which are as under for your ready reference: [(1)] Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serves on the assessee a notice

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

264\n6,14,267\n2017-18 (2,10,000)\n2,10,000\n39,27,473\nCapital Gain in FY 2018-\n19\n15,39,545\nDeductions/s 54 (Property\nPurchased in 28 May 2018\nRs.38,20,000/-\n15,39,545\nNIL\nDRP\nLong Term Capital Gain\nNe\nD\nDRP.1. Ne\nariat.\n3.4 However, the assessee neither presented (or through authorized\nrepresentative) before

SONU AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Capital Gains of Rs. 81,84,838/- claimed by the assessee from sale of the stock of Goenka Business and Finance Limited and Ejecta Marketing Ltd. has been disallowed treating the same as assessee’s own unaccounted income in the guise of bogus LTCG. The AO accordingly assessed the total income Sonu Agarwal, Jaipur. of the assessee