SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

capital gains related income. As per Section 292B- No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-5, JAIPUR vs. SHRI BANWARI LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

capital gains related income. As per Section 292B- No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 54/54F, hence, the investment made u/s 54 of Rs. 1,01,01,010/- was rightly disallowed. 18. To summarize, the appellant's share of land sold at Rs.2,75,77,251/- on which capital gain was not disclosed as per Act despite it being a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act as the property was situated within

JAI DEEP SINGH,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain Rs.87,91,731/- Unexplained cash payment Rs.50,00,000/- 4 Shri Jaideep Singh vs. ITO Unexplained cash deposit Rs.20,00,000/- 4. It was submitted that before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the reopening of assessment. The Ld. CIT(A), however, upheld the validity of reopening by giving following findings:- (a) The AO has received specific information

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

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

capital gains. The action of the A.O. in denying the\nsame is therefore in accordance with the provisions of law and hence upheld. This ground\nof appeal raised by the appellant is thus dismissed.\n5.1 The second ground of appeal raised by the appellant read as under.\n\"That the learned AO erred in facts and law by not considering

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

292B cannot take care of any mistake in\nrecording the reasons because that section refers to \"return of income,\nassessment, notice, summons or other proceedings\"—It does not refer to the\nreasons recorded by the AO—Any invalid proceedings for assumption of\njurisdiction cannot be corrected by s.292B\n(i) In the case of Vikram Singh vs. Income Tax Officer

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

292B cannot take care of any mistake in\nrecording the reasons because that section refers to \"return of income,\nassessment, notice, summons or other proceedings\"—It does not refer to the\nreasons recorded by the AO—Any invalid proceedings for assumption of\njurisdiction cannot be corrected by s.292B\n(i) In the case of Vikram Singh vs. Income Tax Officer

SMT. LALITA RAWAT, 40, RAWAT PALACE, NEAR MURLI MANOHAR MANDIE, BAS PADANPURA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-5(5), JAIPUR, WARD-5(5), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Issuing The Notice. 2. That The Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate The Fact Of Re-Assessment Notice & Consequential Re-Assessment

capital gain on sale of an immovable property amounting to Rs. 26,26,772/- was brought to tax. In appeal, the same has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the present appeal through the legal heir, Smt Lalita Rawat, wife of the deceased assessee which has come up for adjudication before us. 3. In ground

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

292B cannot take care of any mistake in\r\nrecording the reasons because that section refers to \"return of income,\r\nassessment, notice, summons or other proceedings\"—It does not refer to the\r\nreasons recorded by the AO—Any invalid proceedings for assumption of\r\njurisdiction cannot be corrected by s.292B\r\n(i) In the case of Vikram

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

Capital Gain and also erred in not giving the claim/deduction u/s 54. The Ld. AO and CIT(A)also erred in not considering the evidences, vital facts and material available on record in their true perspective and sense. Hence the addition so made by the Id. AO and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is also being contrary

SUBHASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

Capital Gain was bonafide and unintentional and committed by tax return preparer of counsel of assessee due to oversight only as he could not notice that the entire land was not sold but only a part of it was so sold and therefore the entire cost of acquisition of land was not to be taken and only proportionate cost

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

gain, he cannot simply dispute fact that assessee did not file return—\nEntire reasoning recorded by AO for initiation of reassessment proceeding and\nissuance of notice under section 148 was on wrong and incorrect facts that\nassessee has never filed return of income, and in fact, it was filed—Initiation of\nreassessment proceeding u/s.147 and notice under section

MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains tax, along with any associated documentation, resides solely with the seller and is a matter strictly between the seller and tax authorities. The broker is neither involved in the financial decisions of the seller nor privy to their unique financial situations or tax returns. Thus, there can be no expectation that the broker would maintain detailed or accurate

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)

gainfully made : Section 271AAB: Penalty where search has been initiated Section 271 AAB of the income Tax Act read as under: (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of July, 2012, [but before

LATE SH. BANWARI LAL SOOTHWAL, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. SHYAM LAL SOOTHWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

capital gain and by substituting the actual sales consideration of Rs.44,45,326/- with the value assessed by the sub-registrar at Rs.89,89,504/-. 3) The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 4) Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.” 2 ITA No.845/JPR/2024 Late Sh. Banwari Lal Soothwal [A] Submission of ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR

AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, ALWAR

In the result, all the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain or casual income was also not addressed\nby the Revenue. In the light of the same, in the facts of the case, we find that the\nAssessing Officer was justified in issuing the notice under section 148 of the Act on May\n17, 2000.\"\n7.8 This view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

NARAYAN HEIGHTS & TOWERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

292B of the Act. This finding of the Ld. CIT (A) is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of CIT and Another Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory,359 ITR 565(Kar.) (supra). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has held as under:- “ 63. In the light of what is stated

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

KAILASH PARASHAR,PUSHKAR,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3), AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

capital gain on sale of agriculture land at Rs.1,68,30,891/-. In this order penalty proceeding was again initiated for furnishing inaccurate / wrong particulars of income. The AO after the ITAT order again issued penalty notice to the assessee on 07.02.2020. In response the assessee stated that Hon’ble ITAT has set aside the case with specific direction