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

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

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

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

capital gain, he cannot simply dispute fact that assessee did not file return—Entire\nreasoning recorded by AO for initiation of reassessment proceeding and issuance of notice\nunder section 148 was on wrong and incorrect facts that assessee has never filed return of\nincome, and in fact, it was filed—Initiation of reassessment proceeding u/s.147 and notice under\nsection

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

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

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

SUSHILA CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

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

capital gains in the sale of TCS Ltd.\nshares amount to Rs.19,32,34,27,592 and respondent No. 1 was\nincorrect in stating that he had reason to believe that the sum of Rs.\n22,71,25,79,374 has escaped assessment.\n7. In our view, if the reasons for reopening the assessment is based on\nincorrect facts

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

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

section 11 & 12 of the Act. The\nregistration of the trust was again granted to the trust under new regime vide\nregistration dated 23.09.2021 (APB-88-90), that registration being in new law. The\nsubsequent observation on business activities and benefit to the specified person\nalso covered under the new law which does not warrant the rejection of the\nregistration

SUNIL CHABLANI,AJMER, RAJASTHAN vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

Capital Gain\narising from the sale of the residential house for Rs 69.90 lacs on 28.07.2017 but then\nfinally in draft assessment order he sifted to the addition made u/s 69A of the Act. In the\nimpugned assessment order he invoked S.69A first but at the end he made addition on\naccount of LTCG.\n3.1.4 From this what emerges

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

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\nthe actual sales consideration of Rs.44,45,326/- with the\nvalue assessed by the sub-registrar at Rs.89,89,504/-.\n3)\nThe appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of\nappeal.\n4)\nNecessary cost be awarded to the assessee.”\n2\nITA No.845/JPR/2024\nLate Sh. Banwari Lal Soothwal [A]\nSubmission of ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR