RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

capital gains tax, but that cannot be a case of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. If it has claimed any exemption after disclosing the relevant basic facts and under ignorance of the provisions of the Act of 1961, and not offered that amount for tax, in such cases, penalty should not be imposed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 271(1)(c)\nof I.T. Act, 1961 imposing penalty being 100% of tax leviable on\nfollowing income treating same as concealed income of assessee-\nFurther AO also imposed penalty u/s 271AAA by passing separate\norder on alleged undisclosed income which she determined by treating\nland under JV as outright sale on income therefore on same income\ntwo different penalties

SHRI MAHESH KUMAR JAIN,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, we affirm the order of the ld CIT(A) in all these cases and all these cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee are dismissed

capital gain and other sources. Therefore, this clearly suggests that the ld. AO was completely satisfied with manner and substantiation of the undisclosed income declared by it. Therefore, the ld. AO was incorrect in giving finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the undisclosed income. 8.4 It was further submitted that as already explained that the assessee made a surrender

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

C) FAVOURABLE DECISION IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. SURJAN SINGH (1983) 3 ITD 438 (DEL) - In view of the aforesaid speech it is clear that the purposes of introducing the provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a) was to bring the gains of sale of urban land under taxation. There was no provisions of taxing the gains

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain short term and long term both and income from other 23 Shri Raj Kumar Jain, Jaipur. sources, apart from the surrendered income of Rs. 3,95,30,000/-. Therefore, it is clear that the assesee was not required to maintain regular books of account as per section 44AA of the Act. The AO and ld. CIT (A) have

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

C Capital Gain (A-B) 1431596/- D Less: Deduction u/s 54EC 50,00,000/- E Less: Deduction u/s 54F(1) 26,73,955/- 76,73,955/- (on the payment of Rs. 28 Lacs) F Capital Gain liable for Tax 66,41,252/- 6. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi upheld the order of the Assessing Officer on the ground that Assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was right in cancelling the penalty by placing reliance on the decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Hon’ble ITAT in ITA No. 296/JP/2014 in Ajay traders Vs DCIT Central Circle, Alwar

GURUVENDRA SINGH ,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

27,87,770 Nil 2,00,04,860 56,812 1,54,73,930 44,74,118 2016-17 18,55,935 Nil 14784290 41,987 1,47,42,303 NIL 1.7. Against the amount of Capital Gain, assessee claimed benefit of Section 54B of ITA. Out of the money so received on sale of stock in trade, assessee invested

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

27-08-2008 on residential and business premises of the assessee. The return u/s 153 of the I.T. Act was filed on 31-03-2009 declaring total income of Rs. 5,85,090/- which included additional income surrender of Rs.4,53,819/-. The assessment was made by 6 Narayana Heights & Tower. the AO u/s 153A/143

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

gain on sale of shares. Therefore, the documents which were found and seized during the course of search and seizure action contains the details of LTCG would not be regarded as incriminating material disclosing any income not recorded in the books of account. Hence the primary condition for treating such income as undisclosed income in terms of section 271AAB

SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

Capital Gain. In response to notice under section 153A of the IT Act, the assessee furnished his return of income on 01.02.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 11,18,27,200/- which includes the income of Rs. 10,87,91,302/- admitted during search (including income of Rs. 10,69,91,302/- already declared in the return filed

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

gain on sale of shares. Therefore, the documents which were found and seized during the course of search and seizure action contains the details of LTCG would not be regarded as incriminating material disclosing any income not recorded in the books of account. Hence the primary condition for treating such income as undisclosed income in terms of section 271AAB

SHRI RITESH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain short term and long term both and income from other sources, apart from the surrendered income of Rs. 7,22,00,000/-. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee was not required to main the regular books of account as per section 44AA of the Act. The AO and ld. CIT (A) have proceeded on the premises that

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

27 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an affidavit stating the reasons for delay and prayed to condone the delay, the content of the affidavit reads as under :- AFFIDAVIT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY 1, Roshan Lal, humbly submit this request for condonation of delay in filing my appeal (Form

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

Capital Gain on which deduction under section 54/54F was claimed 12. In view of above facts and circumstances it is submitted that this old super structure on the land was demolished by the assessee in the year 2004 and further after division of the land between the assessee and his wife on 10/6/2011, the assessee was having only vacant land

SHRI SURESH CHAND MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

capital gain and income from other sources. A search was conducted in case of Okay Plus JKD Group at the residential and business premises of the assessee group on 4th September, 2013. The assessee disclosed in the statement under section 132(4) an undisclosed income of Rs. 1,03,60,000/-. The assessee filed his return of income

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the trust or, as the case may be, institution, and separate books of account are maintained by such trust or institution in respect of such business. (5) The forms and modes of investing or depositing the money referred to in clause (b) of sub-section

SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

c) of the Explanation 2 to sub-section 1 of Section 139 of the Act, whereas sub-section (4) of Section 139 provides for extension in period of due date in certain circumstances. It reads as under:— 13 Renu Jain vs. ITO (4) Any person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under sub-section