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

364/- [in November – December 2014] after holding the same for more than 12 months [more particularly around 22 months]. Consequent long term capital gain of Rs. 30,04,864/- earned from sale of these shares was declared in the return of income and as shares were of listed public limited company, sold through recognized stock exchange after holding

HARISH SHARMA HUF,B-1, PATODIYA MARG, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gains. In the report of the investigation wing listed penny stocks companies were indentified which were used for generating bogus LTCG and in this list name of the company is appearing at Sr. No. 69. The ld. DR further based on that report submitted that in the script CRESSANDA SOLUTIONS LTD total trade

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

capital gain even though the claim is of the agricultural income, considering it as non-agricultural. Since the assessee has revised the claim and paid the tax due before the assessing officer, there cannot be providing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee we get support of the view that the revised return should be considered as disclosure before

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

gain on sale of “UTI Transportation and Logistics Fund under section 10(38), and by investment of Rs 1,99,000/- which was made from owned funds as assessee was having availability of ample of owned funds. So, no borrowing cost has been incurred towards purchase of this UTI TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS FUND and other investments which may generate exempt

MANPHOOL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

capital gain. Hence it is simple case of difference in opinion. • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. [2018] 97 taxmann.com 278 held as under: where assessee had furnished certain details regarding expenditure as well as income in return, which were not found inaccurate, nor could be viewed as concealment of income

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)

section 263 of the Act, the twin condition is required to be satisfied which not fulfilled in this case. On the issue observed by the ld. PCIT the sufficient enquiry has already been done by the assessing officer and as regards the debatable issue the ld. AO has taken a plausible view of the matter and for that matter

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

gain governed by the SEBI Venture Capital Regulations, 1996. The corpus fund is held by various central and state government undertaking and PSU banks for the purpose of financing venture capital undertakings. The whole idea of constitution of the trust is the pooling capital undertakings, which supports entrepreneurship and innovations. 14. From the argument

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

364 ITR 31 (SC) Claim of benefit of exemption u/s 11 and 12 r.w.s. 13 of the Act – Public religious trust – Whether the Courts were justified in coming to the conclusion that the respondent- trust is a public religious trust and is outside the purview of Section 13(1)(b) and eligible for 24 OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION VS ITO (EXEMPTION

POOJA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Bench: This Tribunal Revenue As Well As The Assessee-Appellant

364) क" रोड़ "वारा नापी गई. "यूनतम दूर" Pooja Agarwal vs. ACIT (1) "दनांक 06.01.1994 क" ि"थ"त के अनुसार "यारह "क.मी. पांच सौ मीटर एवं (2) "दनांक 22.12.2007 क" ि"थ"त के अनुसार पांच "कलोमीटर पांच सौ मीटर स"या"पत क" जाती है। Thus, in terms of the finding given by the State Land Revenue Authorities

ITO, JAIPUR vs. POOJA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

Bench: This Tribunal Revenue As Well As The Assessee-Appellant

364) क" रोड़ "वारा नापी गई. "यूनतम दूर" Pooja Agarwal vs. ACIT (1) "दनांक 06.01.1994 क" ि"थ"त के अनुसार "यारह "क.मी. पांच सौ मीटर एवं (2) "दनांक 22.12.2007 क" ि"थ"त के अनुसार पांच "कलोमीटर पांच सौ मीटर स"या"पत क" जाती है। Thus, in terms of the finding given by the State Land Revenue Authorities

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

364/- from trading in F&O Transaction. With this background, reopening of assessment is challenged on following issues: 10 Sh. Kapil Taneja vs. DCIT (i) After considering the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal, notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation. (ii) Reopening by jurisdictional Assessing officer and by Faceless

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

364 (Raj) and I1O vs T. Abdul Majeed (1987) 64 CTR (Ker) 266: (1988) 169 ITR 440 (Ker) relied on. Since all the entries in A-3/A-5 contain the names of the lenders, therefore, what the assessee means in the statement is that money was advanced through him and it does not, therefore, lead to the inference that money

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

364 (Raj) and I1O vs T. Abdul Majeed (1987) 64 CTR (Ker) 266: (1988) 169 ITR 440 (Ker) relied on. Since all the entries in A-3/A-5 contain the names of the lenders, therefore, what the assessee means in the statement is that money was advanced through him and it does not, therefore, lead to the inference that money

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

364 (Raj) and I1O vs T. Abdul Majeed (1987) 64 CTR (Ker) 266: (1988) 169 ITR 440 (Ker) relied on. Since all the entries in A-3/A-5 contain the names of the lenders, therefore, what the assessee means in the statement is that money was advanced through him and it does not, therefore, lead to the inference that money

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

364 (Raj) and I1O vs T. Abdul Majeed (1987) 64 CTR (Ker) 266: (1988) 169 ITR 440 (Ker) relied on. Since all the entries in A-3/A-5 contain the names of the lenders, therefore, what the assessee means in the statement is that money was advanced through him and it does not, therefore, lead to the inference that money

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

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

364,500.00\nDecember\n16,883,500.00\n9,394,800.00\nJanuary\n12,258,700.00\n11,637,100.00\nFebruary\n12,502,900.00\n12,797,100.00\nMarch\n44,547,250.00\n33,505,400.00\nTotal\n279,361,850.00\n191,730,600.00\nb. Admittedly all the above details were submitted before the Ld.AO. Now, the\ndetails of cash deposited were doubted on the ground sale

ANSHU SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

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

capital gains. At the same time, she invested in the commercial complex and let out the space to L & T Ltd. for earning regular rental income. During the AY 2013-14, she withdrew the cash from her bank accounts with the Federal Bank Ltd, Jaipur to the tune of Rs. 1,41,41,000/- and after depositing back