SHRI GOPI RAM SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-4, JAIPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 55(3) are applicable in this case and the fair market value of the asset as on 01.04.1981 would be the cost of acquisition of land for the purpose of computing capital gain. She has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Raja Malwinder Singh

RAM LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 55(3) are applicable in this case and the fair market value of the asset as on 01.04.1981 would be the cost of acquisition of land for the purpose of computing capital gain. She has relied upon the 8 ITA 522 To 528/JP/17_ Ram Lal Sharma and others Vs. ITO decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

Capital gain chargeable to Tax 6239484 Assessee submits with reference to the proposition and show cause notice is the only limitation on his powers is that he must have some material(s) which would enable him to form a prima facie opinion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. M/S KRISH HOME PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, we set aside the order of the ld

capital gains arising from transfer of land which is used for agricultural purposes wherever it may be situated. 2. In this appeal, challenge to this order is based on many grounds and our attention has been drawn to several decisions not only taking similar but also a contrary view. The respondents having remained ex parte, we requested Shri Dhruv Mehta

PREM JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

capital gain derived from transfer of one Original Asset. The AO was required to examine the basis of claiming 54F deduction separately in parts on both the plots as also its admissibility. 8. As discussed above, the Assessing Officer failed to apply her mind on the material available on record and failed to invoke the applicable 8 Prem Jain, Jaipur

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. ASHOK KUMAR SANKHLA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

gain on cancellation of booking is declared as nil by the assessee . Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of 11 The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs Shri Ashok Kumar Sankhla the case, it is noted that the ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 3.56 lacs made by the AO. Thus Ground

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

366 ITR 418 (Raj) held that Evasion\nof tax was menace to society but Assessee contributing to the exchequer\nin form of tax could not be allowed to suffer on mere pretence that it had evaded\npayment of tax. Rowing and fishing enquiry in hands of AO on mere suspicion or\nchange of opinion could not satisfy expression \"reason

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

366 ITR 418 (Raj) held that Evasion\nof tax was menace to society but Assessee contributing to the exchequer\nin form of tax could not be allowed to suffer on mere pretence that it had evaded\npayment of tax. Rowing and fishing enquiry in hands of AO on mere suspicion or\nchange of opinion could not satisfy expression \"reason

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

gains, nor is it income from other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 69B, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case may be, have not been explained or satisfactorily explained. Therefore, in these cases, the source

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

gain tax, but that cannot be a case\nof penalty under s.271(1)(c). If it has claimed any exemption after\ndisclosing the relevant basic facts and under the ignorance of the\nprovision of the Act, and not offered that amount for tax, in such cases,\npenalty should not be imposed. In such cases rather it is the duty

MUKESH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Him.

366/- as long-term capital gain on account of sale of immovable property without allowing the benefit of cost of acquisition. 3. That the lower authorities have erred in law as well in facts of the case bringing alleged long term capital gain under ambit of section

MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

capital gains tax GROUND No. (2) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts sustaining legality of order of the Id. AO in which addition of Rs.4,07,000/- was made by ignoring the different judicial pronouncements when: 10 MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR (a) Reasons recorded and notice

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

Capital Market Pvt. Ltd.) Thus it is clear that both the share applicant companies are regularly assessed and assessment orders under section 143(3) were passed wherein the transactions of investment made in the shares of the assessee were not disturbed by the AO. Hence all these documentary evidences as well as the admitted facts clearly established that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

Capital Market Pvt. Ltd.) Thus it is clear that both the share applicant companies are regularly assessed and assessment orders under section 143(3) were passed wherein the transactions of investment made in the shares of the assessee were not disturbed by the AO. Hence all these documentary evidences as well as the admitted facts clearly established that the assessee

M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Capital Gain in his individual hands. I have gone through the statement of Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his disclosure made in his statement, Notably, the disclosure made was in his personal capacity only and with respect to LTCG only and not in respect of any other transactions be it be receipt of unsecured loans. Further, Rajendra Agarwal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

Capital Gain in his individual hands. I have gone through the statement of Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his disclosure made in his statement, Notably, the disclosure made was in his personal capacity only and with respect to LTCG only and not in respect of any other transactions be it be receipt of unsecured loans. Further, Rajendra Agarwal

M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

Capital Gain in his individual hands. I have gone through the statement of Shri Rajendra Agarwal and his disclosure made in his statement, Notably, the disclosure made was in his personal capacity only and with respect to LTCG only and not in respect of any other transactions be it be receipt of unsecured loans. Further, Rajendra Agarwal