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)

xii) Similar view is expressed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla 380 (Delhi HC). The Hon'ble High Court, while analyzing the provisions of section 153A read with section 132 of the Act has observed in para 37 and 38 under :- "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1

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)

xii) Similar view is expressed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla 380 (Delhi HC). The Hon'ble High Court, while analyzing the provisions of section 153A read with section 132 of the Act has observed in para 37 and 38 under :- "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1

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)

xii) Similar view is expressed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla 380 (Delhi HC). The Hon'ble High Court, while analyzing the provisions of section 153A read with section 132 of the Act has observed in para 37 and 38 under :- "37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

36 persons. However, in that list also assessee name was not mentioned. Thus by, relying upon the generalized statements of such parties, ld. AO concluded that M/s Midland Polymers is a Penny stock company and further went on holding that entire consideration received by the assessee after adjusting Short Term Capital declared in IDS 2016 as unexplained cash credit

SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, WARD -1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

section 10(38) for holding the profit from the sale of shares as exempt have duly SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL VS ACIT, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR been fulfilled by the assessee, thus in no circumstances it could be held as bogus or sham transaction more particularly when no corroborative evidence was brought on record by the department to hold that assessee

RAJRAJESHWARI GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO , WARD 1(1),KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 68. 26 RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA 1.31As the issue involved is of chargeability of long term capital gain as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, it may be mentioned that many High courts and ITAT benches have held in favour of the assessee. In one of the cases

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

36 for you honours’s ready reference. iii. After the purchase of shares, the shares were got dematerialized and were credited in the assessee’s D-mat account (500 shares on 04.09.2013 and 12000 shares prior to that) maintained with independent and reputed D- Mat service provider duly approved by various regulatory authorities. These shares continued

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

XII-BA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with special provisions relating to certain non-corporate assesses. Section 115JC therein contains special provisions for Minimum Alternate Tax by non-corporate assesses. Provisions of Section 115JC(2)(i) explicitly stipulates those deductions / exemptions contained in Chapter VIA, Part C (which includes Section 80-IA) will be subjected to Minimum Alternate

MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , KOTA

36,700/- resulting into net capital gain of Rs. 48,995/-. The\nAO on perusal of record further observed that in the case of a family member of\nthe same assessee, Shri D.C. Maini, in the same assessment year, similar\nexercise has been done, wherein a long-term capital loss of Rs. 11,59,066/- had\nbeen incurred on account

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

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

xii)\nCopy of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP having Diary\nno.(S) 27373/2018\n207\n(xiii)\nCopy of Hon'ble ITAT order for A.Y. 2010-11 to A.Y. 2015-16 in\nassessee's own case\n208-303\n(xiv)\nCopy of Schedule “L” of Concession agreement containing clause\nNo. 4.5.1 related to Periodic Overlay (Pavement Riding Quality

PAWAN GUPTA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 1(3) KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

36,700/- resulting into net capital gain of Rs. 48,995/-. The AO on perusal of record\nfurther observed that in the case of a family member of the same assessee, Shri D.C. Maini,\nin the same assessment year, similar exercise has been done, wherein a long-term capital loss\nof Rs. 11,59,066/- had been incurred on account

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

XII-BA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with special provisions relating to certain non-corporate assesses. Section 115JC therein contains special provisions for Minimum Alternate Tax by non-corporate assesses. Provisions of Section 115JC(2)(i) explicitly stipulates those deductions / exemptions contained in Chapter VIA, Part C (which includes Section 80-IA) will be subjected to Minimum Alternate

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

XII-BA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with special provisions relating to certain non-corporate assesses. Section 115JC therein contains special provisions for Minimum Alternate Tax by non-corporate assesses. Provisions of Section 115JC(2)(i) explicitly stipulates those deductions / exemptions contained in Chapter VIA, Part C (which includes Section 80-IA) will be subjected to Minimum Alternate

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

XII-BA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with\nspecial provisions relating to certain non-corporate assesses.\nSection 115JC therein contains special provisions for Minimum\nAlternate Tax by non-corporate assesses. Provisions of Section\n115JC(2)(i) explicitly stipulates those deductions / exemptions\ncontained in Chapter VIA, Part C (which includes Section 80-IA)\nwill be subjected to Minimum Alternate

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

XII-BA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deals with special provisions relating to certain non-corporate assesses. Section 115JC therein contains special provisions for Minimum Alternate Tax by non-corporate assesses. Provisions of Section 115JC(2)(i) explicitly stipulates those deductions / exemptions contained in Chapter VIA, Part C (which includes Section 80-IA) will be subjected to Minimum Alternate

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

XII) It is therefore humbly submitted that the issue has not been conclusively decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Meeta Gugutia (Supra) as relied upon by the Id. AR, otherwise, these SLPs should not have been admitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. (XIII) In the case of Sunny Jacob Jewellers And Wedding Centre

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

XII) It is therefore humbly submitted that the issue has not been conclusively decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Meeta Gugutia (Supra) as relied upon by the Id. AR, otherwise, these SLPs should not have been admitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. (XIII) In the case of Sunny Jacob Jewellers And Wedding Centre