VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

c) ,1(d) and Profession ion is to be adjusted 3(a) in Other source Schedule. 3(a) in Other source Schedule. in the schedule. in the schedule. In In Schedule Schedule BP, BP, Sl.No.15 Sl.No.15 "Amounts debited to the profit and "Amounts debited to the profit and loss loss account, account, to to the the extent extent

R P WOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD ,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 or the date on which the period specified in the notice issued 42[under section

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)

capital 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

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

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 or the date on which the period specified in the notice issued 42[under section

PREM PRAKASH AGARWAL,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 or the date on which the period specified in the notice issued 42[under section

AJMER INDUSTRIES LLP,NAYA BAZAR AJMER vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 or the date on which the period specified in the notice issued 42[under section

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 68. 26 RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA 1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have held in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S R.P.WOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., , AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub- section (1) of section 139 or the date on which the period specified in the notice issued 42[under section

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

section 68.\n1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the\nassessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have\nheld in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases (CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia) SLP\nfiled by the Revenue against

HARI NARAIN PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

capital gain and other sources. A search u/s 132 took place on 07-01-2016in the case of Dilip Maihar Group in which assessee was also covered. The assessment u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 153B (1) (b) of I. T. Act, 1961 was completed on 29-12-2017. Action of Ld. A.O. The Ld. A.O. in the assessment order initiated

BITTHAL DAS PARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result,the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

capital gain and other sources. A search u/s 132 took place on 07-01-2016in the case of Dilip Maihar Group in which assessee was also covered. The assessment u/s 143 (3) r.w.s. 153B (1) (b) of I. T. Act, 1961 was completed on 29-12-2017. Action of Ld. A.O. The Ld. A.O. in the assessment order initiated

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

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)

275-277/ Vol-2. (iii) AY 2017-18 The assessment of immediate preceding year AY 2017-18 was completed u/s 143(3) wherein no addition u/s 14A was made. The copy of assessment order for AY 2017-18 is at PB page 241-246/Vol-2. It is worthwhile to mention the investment in MF/Equities as on 31/03/2017

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

1), bei Vehicle rating of the gross vehicle weight and axel weight respectively as duly certified by the testing agencies for compliance of the rule 126, or in the maximum vehicle weight and maximum safe axle weight of each vehicle respectively as notified by the Central Government, or ill the maximum total load permitted to be carned by the tyre

PRADEEP GARG, AJMER,AJMER vs. ITO 2(1) AJMER , AJMER

section 271(1)(c). As a result, there was no clarity whether the\nnotice was for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate\nparticulars of income. He has filed copies of those notices. For his contention,\nassessee has relied on judgments of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Hon'ble\nSupreme Court and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

275/-. The A.O. in the assessment completed has disallowed\nappellant's claim of indexed cost of construction in respect of such cost of construction.\nEven duringthe course of appellate proceedings the appellant has not justified with\nsufficient details and documentary evidences the claim of additional stamp duty paid of Rs.\n69,672/-. Therefore, in my considered opinion appellant's claim