SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

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

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

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

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

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

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

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

SHRI AJAY WAHI ,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Capital Gain arising from sale of plots of land. The assessee challenged the 3 Shri Ajay Wahi, Jaipur. action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) and also raised a ground against the validity of reopening. However, the ld. CIT (A) has upheld the validity of reopening of the assessment. 3. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains - Special provision for\ncomputation of full value consideration (Safe harbour) - Assessment year 2011-\n12 - Whether amendment in scheme of section 50C(1), by inserting third proviso\nthereto and by enhancing tolerance band for variations between stated sale\nconsideration vis-à-vis stamp duty valuation from 5 per cent to 10 per cent are\ncurative in nature, and, therefore, these

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

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 and appellant are separate

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

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 and appellant are separate

OM PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGANER JAIPUR vs. WARD 4(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by\nITO, Ward 4(3), Jaipur before him.\n2\nITA No. 43/JP/2024\nOm Prakash Sharma vs. ITO\nThe present is for the following grounds: -\n\"1. The A.O. erred in not following the principles of natural justice and in failing to\nprovide adequate and meaningful opportunity and ignoring the evidence on record

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 54/54F, hence, the investment made u/s 54 of Rs. 1,01,01,010/- was rightly disallowed. 18. To summarize, the appellant's share of land sold at Rs.2,75,77,251/- on which capital gain was not disclosed as per Act despite it being a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act as the property was situated within

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, KOTA

capital of the assessee with premium. Further, the income tax returns of the share applicants were also filed which show that all the transactions were disclosed in the return of income. Apart from the capacity of the share applicants, the assessee has also produced the bank statements of the share applicants to show that the payment of the money

M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

capital of the assessee with premium. Further, the income tax returns of the share applicants were also filed which show that all the transactions were disclosed in the return of income. Apart from the capacity of the share applicants, the assessee has also produced the bank statements of the share applicants to show that the payment of the money

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, KOTA

capital of the assessee with premium. Further, the income tax returns of the share applicants were also filed which show that all the transactions were disclosed in the return of income. Apart from the capacity of the share applicants, the assessee has also produced the bank statements of the share applicants to show that the payment of the money

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

gains. At the same time, new period 7 Om Infra Limited vs. DCIT, Central Circle-01, Jaipur of 10 years does not start. It is because of the reason that total period for which deduction can be allowed is capped at 10 years, inasmuch as sub-section (6) in no uncertain terms stipulates that deduction shall be not allowed

SH. KRISHNA KUMAR PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 along with questionnaire was issued on 19.09.2019 asking the assessee to furnish certain information / details. In response thereof, the assessee filed requisite details/information through e-file portal. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO noticed that in the year under consideration the assessee has shown payment of interest

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

433,021.56\n220,232,904.00\n451,665,925.56\n491,351,818.15\n491,351,818.15\nSales\nPurchases\nS.No.\nMonth\nCash\nCredit\nTotal\nCash\nCredit\nTotal\n1\nApril-15\n5,149,590.00\n16,755,900.00\n21,905,490.00\n34,443,886.45\n34,443,886.45\n2\nMay

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. CHAMBOO GUPTA, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR

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

capital gain on sale of shares held as investment. Her case was reopened to tax the profit arising on sale of shares of VMS Industries Ltd., a penny stock company. On verification of the papers submitted by him, it was found that the impugned transaction related to sale and purchase of this script, stood duly accounted in the copy

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

433 (SC) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal whereby the judgement of Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2002] 123 TAXMAN 1052 (MP) was affirmed. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court as under- 5. We find ourselves in agreement with the view haken