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, did not disclose the profits arising on its sale. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS which was finalized u/s 143(3) of the IT Act. 1961 determining total income Rs. 1,14,75,790/- on 05.12.2016 An addition of Rs 1,14,75,791/-was made on account of LTCG on sale of the impugned

JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

282 Sharad Kumar Dhandari\nSBBJ Capital Gain A/c No. 61187164085\n8-Jul-14\n539,300 Sharad Kumar Bhandari\nSBBJ Capital Gain A/c No. 61187164085\n12-Mar-15\n7,715,620 Sharad Kumar Bhandari\nSBBJ Capital Gain Vo No. 61192561563\n26-Dec-13\n539,281\nJuhi Bhandari\nSBBJ Capital Gain A/c No.61192561563\n8-Jul-14\n539,300\nJuhi Bhandari\nSBBJ Capital

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

capital nature but had changed its character to be of revenue nature, it was treated to be taxable income of the assessee. Thus, the amount of Rs. 1,03,648/- found credited in the books of account of the assessee, the liability to pay back the same had ceased to exist and, therefore, the Tribunal had rightly treated

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who after considering both the parties has upheld reopening of assessment U/s 147, on merits the ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs. 1,13,23,461/- by holding that the transaction is a transfer within the meaning

MRS. RENU SEHGAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed and that of the

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 837/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke The Acit Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs. Central Circle-3 27, Onkar Nagar, Civil Lines Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 708 & 709 Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Cuke Mrs. Renu Sehgal The Dcit Vs. 227-278, Nemisagar Colony Central Circle-3, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aepps 3048 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Varinder Mehta, Cit-Dr Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm There Are Cross Appeals For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Directed Against The Order Dated 09-04-2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur. The 2 Smt. Renu Sehgal Vs Dcit, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

282, Nemi Sagar Colony, Jaipur 376.38 Sq. Yards Total area 3410.54 Sq. Yards The AO doubted the genuineness of the transactions of sale of the properties in the agreement as well as receipt of advance of Rs. 8.00 crores which was claimed to have been forfeited by the assessee as the balance amount was not paid by the purchaser

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

282 ITR 0642\n: (2006) 155 TAXMAN 0513\nPenalty under s.271(1)(c)—Validity—Absence of specific\nfinding-Addition vis-a-vis cash credit upheld by Tribunal—\nThere was no clear-cut finding in the penalty order or the order\nof the CIT(A) as to whether there was concealment of income\nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee

MAYUR UNIQUOTERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NFAC, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

gains derived from the business of generation of ‘power’. In support of this, the assessee reliance is drawn at page no. 214 of the PB, on the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT-vs.- Tanfac Industries Ltd (SLP No. 18537 of 2009) wherein it was specifically upheld that assessee is entitled to deduction

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), Kannur[2012] 20 Taxmann.com 667 (Coch) 14. CBDT Instruction No. 17/2008 dated 26-11-2008 (F.No. 228/3/3008 – ITA-III) 15. CIT vs HCL Comnet Sytesm Ltd. [2008] 174 Taxman 118 SC 16. Rule of Income Tax Rules, 1962 17. CBDT Circular No.9/2006 dated 10-10-2006 18. Zenith Processing Mills Ltd. vs CIT- MANU/GJ/0049/1955 19.CBDT Circular No. 768 dated

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

Capital Region (NCR). Although SEBI was already investigating this issue and was already onto it. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) levied a total penalty of over Rs 55 lakh on nine entities for fraudulent trading in illiquid stock options of the BSE. The action had come after the regulator conducted an investigation into the trading activity

DR. ASHA MATHUR,GUJRAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

capital gains scheme account and then utilizing for the purpose but the assessee has claimed only what has been invested by her up to the due date of filing of return applicable in her case for the ITA 769/JP/2017_ 13 Dr. Asha Mathur Vs. ACIT assessment year 2014-15 i.e. up to 31.07.2014 which for this and that reason

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

gain or loss as per the provisions of Income Tax Act (Le. after indexation) on such assets is to be considered while computing book profit u/s 115JB. The aforesaid claim has duly been made by the appellant in the notes forming part of computation of total income. [For Additional Ground No. 6] 8.0 Prayer 8.1 In view of the above

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

282 (Calcutta) 10. Copy of decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Sapphire 165-176 NA Land Development (P) Ltd vs DCIT [2023] 147 taxmann.com 50 (Mumbai - Trib.) 11. Remand report dated 16 August 2024 obtained by CIT(A) from 177-178 NA the AO 12. Rejoinder submission of the Appellant against remand report

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

282 (Calcutta) 10. Copy of decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Sapphire 165-176 NA Land Development (P) Ltd vs DCIT [2023] 147 taxmann.com 50 (Mumbai - Trib.) 11. Remand report dated 16 August 2024 obtained by CIT(A) from 177-178 NA the AO 12. Rejoinder submission of the Appellant against remand report

JAMNA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

capital gains arising therefrom has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee by the Assessing officer in AY 2008-09. 10 SMT. JAMNA DEVI SHARMA VS ITO, WRD 7(2), JAIPUR C. FINDING OF LD. AO DURING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS: Since no adequate reply was furnished by the assessee, ld. AO levied the penalty. D. Written submissions made

PRAKASH PANDHARINATH BAKRE,INDORE vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. PCIT has erred in exercising the revisionary powers by passing the order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 setting aside the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 16.10.2017. The action of the ld. PCIT is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts

PINKCITY JEWELHOUSE PVT LTD. 76, DHULESHWAR GARDEN, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. PCIT has erred in exercising the revisionary powers by passing the order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 setting aside the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 16.10.2017. The action of the ld. PCIT is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts

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 “UTI Transportation and Logistics Fund under section 10(38), and by investment of Rs 1,99,000/- which was made from owned funds as assessee was having availability of ample of owned funds. So, no borrowing cost has been incurred towards purchase of this UTI TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS FUND and other investments which may generate exempt

M/S. OM PRAKASH BADAYA (HUF),JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT,, ALWAR

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

capital gains was enquired into by the Ld. Assessing Officer properly. In this connection, it is submitted that complete evidences pertaining to the purchases of shares, share transfer confirmation by the company, physical delivery of shares, credit of shares in demat account, sale of shares and finally debit of shares from demat account etc. were filed during the course