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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

gains were not\ntreated to be genuine, AO also rejected claim of assessee for exemption u/s\n54F—CIT(A) held that, rejection of claim of exemption u/s 54F by AO, was in\norder-Held, section 54F, neither provided as pre-condition requirement of filing\nof ‘return of income' by assessee within stipulated time period, nor places any\nembargo as regards

ANAND JHAWAR,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and 3 Shri Anand Jhawar, Jaipur. (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay

M/S ANIL KUMAR SINGHAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

capital gains if any arising from such transfer will arise in the hands of the members and not in the hands of the society. It was accordingly submitted that even the substantive assessment made in the hands of the assessee society is therefore, factually wrong. It was accordingly submitted that the addition so made by the Assessing Officer and which

M/S VIP GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

capital gains if any arising from such transfer will arise in the hands of the members and not in the hands of the society. It was accordingly submitted that even the substantive assessment made in the hands of the assessee society is therefore, factually wrong. It was accordingly submitted that the addition so made by the Assessing Officer and which

M/S DARSHAN SINGH,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-1, JAIPUR

capital gains if any arising from such transfer will arise in the hands of the members and not in the hands of the society. It was accordingly submitted that even the substantive assessment made in the hands of the assessee society is therefore, factually wrong. It was accordingly submitted that the addition so made by the Assessing Officer and which

M/S TOP STAR GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

capital gains if any arising from such transfer will arise in the hands of the members and not in the hands of the society. It was accordingly submitted that even the substantive assessment made in the hands of the assessee society is therefore, factually wrong. It was accordingly submitted that the addition so made by the Assessing Officer and which

SHEETAL BATHLA,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

gain or u/s 48, 56 or u/s 68 or 69. Thus the addition so made 11 Sheetal Bathla, Jaipur. without any provision of act is also against the law and liable to be deleted on this ground alone. When the ld. AO has not invoked any provision of Act/law then also how the ld.AO can make the addition. When