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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DAULAT SINGH HALDEA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 3(3), JAIPUR

The appeal is partly allowed as regards

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

282/- Add: Long term Capital Gain as discussed above Rs. 1,55,00,000/- Gross total income Rs. 1,63,00,964/- Less: deduction u/s 80C Rs. 27,500/- Total taxable income Rs. 1,62,73,464/- Rounded off Rs. 1,62,73,460/- Assessed u/s 143/147 at total income of Rs. 1,62,73,460/-. Issue demand notice. Charge

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

282, the service was insufficient and AO did not have jurisdiction to re-assess the escaped income. Thus, the service of notice under section 148 was no service in the eye of law and all subsequent proceedings including the ex parte assessment framed on 21.12.2016 in assessee’s case were illegal and void ab initio

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

282, the service was insufficient and AO did not have jurisdiction to re-assess the escaped income. Thus, the service of notice under section 148 was no service in the eye of law and all subsequent proceedings including the ex parte assessment framed on 21.12.2016 in assessee’s case were illegal and void ab initio

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

capital gain, business or profession. 2.2 A combined reading of S. 14 with S. 56 of the Act makes is evidently clear that for the assessment of an income it must have to be classified under four heads of income as enumerated u/s 14 and if it doesn’t fall under any specific head of income as per item

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

capital gain. In the result, impugned notice is quashed. Petition is disposed of. In view of the aforesaid submissions the Hon’ble ITAT is requested to quashed the proceedings initiated under section 148/148A. Cross objection Ground No. 2 In the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT Appeals erred in not quashing the assessment order which has been

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)

capital gain claimed by the assessee on the sales of shares of the company for which the information has been received. Thus, she noted that the ld. AO has erred in accepting the claim of the assessee as genuine ignoring the information received from the Investigation Wing and thus the 29 Vipul Kumar Modi vs. PCIT ld. AO failed