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

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

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

MUNNI DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD- 1(4), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after to as Act ] by ITO, Ward 1(4), Jaipur. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 2 Munni Devi Sharma vs ITO “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition

OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIUPR, JAIPUR

capital gain, he cannot simply dispute fact that\nassessee did not file return—Entire reasoning recorded by AO for\ninitiation of reassessment proceeding and issuance of notice under\nsection 148 was on wrong and incorrect facts that assessee has never\nfiled return of income, and in fact, it was filed—Initiation of\nreassessment proceeding u/s.147 and notice under section

MAYA KUMARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain and paid tax thereon voluntarily\nthen it cannot be said that there is the escapement of income by the assessee nor proved\nthen the notice issued u/s 148 is invalid.\n4. Reason to believe and not reason to suspect:\n4.1It is further submitted that even under the amended law by the finance act 1989 the\ncondition precedent

WHOLERY INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

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

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

Capital gains or under the head Other Sources. Hence, there is merit in the submission of the assessee that it is not required to get its accounts audited u/s 44AB of the Act. Accordingly, we are of the view that the defect notice issued by CPC u/s 139(9) of the Act is not in accordance with law and accordingly

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

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE AJMER, AJMER vs. PUJA SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

gain of Rs. 12,79,180/- and in the profit before the tax is only Rs. 10,79,909/-. Thus from these financial information it is very well evident that the investor company is the shell paper company. The ld. DR also drawn our attention to page 169, and argued that there is no stock movement in the financial year

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

366 (Bom) (HC), 331 ITR 236: SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Lark Chemicals ( P) Ltd ( 2018) 259 Taxman 265 (SC) 17 ITA No. 656/JP/2023 & CO No. 06/JP/2023 ITO vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni The court has held that in the reassessment under section 147 the learned AO has to necessarily assess or reassess the income which escape assessment

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

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)

gains and complete account statement of mutual fund holding for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018. Thus, complete details in relation to the investments made by the Appellant in its group concerns and mutual funds were asked and provided to the assessing officer. The assessing officer only after considering the said information, passed the assessment order