INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

vii) On getting the approvals from authorities and resuming construction work post-corona, the project was finally completed in the year 2021 and the flat was registered on 08/07/2021 in the favour of assessee (Smt. Indira Giri). (Please see the affidavit of the assessee at PB No. 76 -77) 1.4 In order to discharge the liability

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

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

vii), from chargeability of capital gain, is not applicable. Ground No. 13 As per law, if the current year's loss of Rs. 391,92,69,355/- is allowed then it would be available for set-off against the Long Term Capital gain of Rs 1,64,34,696/- and consequently, no tax would be payable thereon

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

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

vii), from chargeability of capital gain, is not applicable. Ground No. 13 As per law, if the current year's loss of Rs. 391,92,69,355/- is allowed then it would be available for set-off against the Long Term Capital gain of Rs 1,64,34,696/- and consequently, no tax would be payable thereon

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

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

vii), from chargeability of capital gain, is not applicable. Ground No. 13 As per law, if the current year's loss of Rs. 391,92,69,355/- is allowed then it would be available for set-off against the Long Term Capital gain of Rs 1,64,34,696/- and consequently, no tax would be payable thereon

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

vii), from chargeability of capital gain, is not applicable.\nGround No. 13\nAs per law, if the current year's loss of Rs.391,92,69,355/- is allowed then it\nwould be available for set-off against the Long Term Capital gain of Rs\n1,64,34,696/- and consequently, no tax would be payable thereon.\"\n033\nITA

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

vii), from chargeability of capital gain, is not applicable.\nGround No. 13\nAs per law, if the current year's loss of Rs.391,92,69,355/- is allowed then it\nwould be available for set-off against the Long Term Capital gain of Rs\n1,64,34,696/- and consequently, no tax would be payable thereon.”\n033\nITA

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

vii) Copy of Contract Note issued by\nCreative Financial Services Pvt. Ltd Page No.25 to 26 (viii) Copy of bills issued by\nB. Lodha Securities Ltd Page No.27 (ix) Copy of Contract Note issued by Tushar\n(India) Pvt Ltd Page No.28 (x) Copy of bills issued by B. Lodha Securities Ltd\nPage No.29 to 33 (Xi) Copy of Contract

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

capital asset as reduced by any expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer.] (1B) Where any income in respect of which an option is exercised under clause (2) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) is not applied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the period referred to in sub-clause

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

gains of business or profession", (a) in the case of any assessee (ia) any interest, commission or brokerage, [rent, royalty, fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable to a contractor or sub-contractor, being resident, for carrying out any work (including supply of labour for carrying out any work), on which

RAJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

vii) Padam Chand Pungliya ITA No. 112/JP/2018 (viii) Vimal Chand Surana ITA No. 304/JP/2018. (ix) RajendraKumar Jain dated 14.09.20. 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R relied on the order of the AO. He submitted that the penalty was rightly levied on account of unexplained cash, unexplained jewellery and unexplained valuables found at the premises of the assessee

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The appellant Pvt. Ltd. company before submitting the ground- wise submissions, the appellant submits the following undisputed facts of the case:– (i) That during the course of search and seizure action carried under section 132 of the IT Act by the Department no incriminating document was found and/or seized

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The appellant Pvt. Ltd. company before submitting the ground- wise submissions, the appellant submits the following undisputed facts of the case:– (i) That during the course of search and seizure action carried under section 132 of the IT Act by the Department no incriminating document was found and/or seized

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S VISION ESTATES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The appellant Pvt. Ltd. company before submitting the ground- wise submissions, the appellant submits the following undisputed facts of the case:– (i) That during the course of search and seizure action carried under section 132 of the IT Act by the Department no incriminating document was found and/or seized

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The appellant Pvt. Ltd. company before submitting the ground- wise submissions, the appellant submits the following undisputed facts of the case:– (i) That during the course of search and seizure action carried under section 132 of the IT Act by the Department no incriminating document was found and/or seized

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

36 ITA No. 94 & CO. No. 22/JPR/2025 Smt. Kamla Prabha L/h Late Sh. Gopal Lal Ji Goswami are not sustainable on this technical ground. In view of this background, the other grounds of appeal on the merits of such addition are rendered only academic and do not warrant detailed adjudication. In view of this discussion, the subject ground of appeal

SITA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-4(1), JAIPUR

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

section 68 or not. In the case of NR Portfolio, it was held that the genuineness and credibility are deeper and obtrusive. Similarly, the bank statements provided by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions cannot be considered in view of the judgment of Hon'ble court in the case of Pratham Telecom India Pvt Ltd, wherein