OMPRAKASH,DHOLPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n17/01/2025

gain since the Humble appellant has sold out\nAgriculture Land which is situated in Rural Area at Village Badraitha, Kanchanpur\nTehsil Bari Distt Dholpur. The Land situated at Village Badraitha is 15 Km away\nfrom Bari which is Tehsil and also is a Municipal Area and Land sold out is outside\nfrom Municipality about 15 KM. thus Asset Sold

SHIVA CORPORATION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CC-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

GAIN\nRs.38,56,889\n1. Revenue's Objection to Claim of Agricultural Land:\nThe assessee claimed that the land sold was agricultural and hence\nexempt under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The\nAssessing Officer and CIT(A) rightly treated the land as a 'capital\nasset', taxable under LTCG, based on the following\nThe lands are within

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MEDICAL DESIGNS INDIA PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

capital gains, if any, leviable, the same is\npayable in the AY 2007-08 relevant to FY 2006-07 when the actual transaction of\nsale had taken place. Moreover, in section 50C, the word “assessable” is\ninserted w.e.f. 1.10.2009 thus the sale consideration as appearing in the\nagreement to sale executed in period relevant to AY 2007-08 cannot

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

46A has been filed by the appellant. The same is rejected on this ground. Further the allegation of pressure has been raised by the appellant after a period of six years as the survey was carried out on the date of 04.07.2016. This affidavit has been filed by the appellant after the completion of the assessment wherein tax demand

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

capital gain of It is submitted that for invoking the Rs. 4,77,46,835/- claimed by provision of Section 68 of the Act, Assessee from the sale of stock of Assessee should maintain books of M/s Yamini Investment Company Ltd accounts maintained by the Appellant. was made u/s 68 of the Act , on In the present case , there

ABDUL AZIZ,DUDU vs. ITO WARD 7(3), LAL KOTHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

46A(1) of the Income Tax\nRules, 1962.\n3. The CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in confirming the addition of\nRs.25,75,600/- on account of Long term capital gain on the entire sale consideration of\nagricultural land, which was not a capital asset as per the Income Tax Act, made

PHOOL CHAND,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

capital gain and income from other sources. Against the sale of property at Rs. 17,00,000/- the assessee has claimed indexed cost at Rs. 16,95,170/- and offered gain of Rs. 4,830/-. In the return the assessee the assessee has claimed expenditure on construction for an amount of Rs. 8,15,160/- against which 6 Phool Chand

SUBHASH CHAND PATNI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

section 50C, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is unsustainable. (copy of all judgements are enclosed) GROUND NO.2: ERRONEOUS ACTION OF LEVY OF PENATLY U/S. 271(1)(C) WITHOUT ASCERTAINING CORRECT FACTS OF CASE 9 Subhash Chand Patni vs. ITO, Jaipur 1. That facts of the case are that appellant has got registered a sale deed of sale of agricultural land

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the Revenue as well as CO's of\nthe assessee are dismissed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 03/10/2024

capital gain and a further addition of Rs.56,60,800/- on\n6\nITA NO. 469 & 470/JP/2024\nDCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI MAHAVEER KUMAR JAIN\naccount of undisclosed income of lawnGarden booking- Garden Mahaveer\nParadise.\n3.2 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the Department, it is noticed from the order\nof the Id. CIT(A) who vide para

DEEN DAYAL SHARMA,A-135, GOVINDPURA, KARDHANI, KALWAR ROAD, JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1), JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by ITO, Ward -3(1), Jaipur. 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following 2 Deen Dayal Sharma vs. ITO grounds:- “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in reopening the assessment

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

ASHOK GUPTA HUF,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is disposed off for

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

gain income is liable for tax in respect of the aforesaid transaction." As per assessment order, the reply of the assessee has been considered carefully by the ld. AO. From that he observed that the page no. 66 to 68 seized from M/s Gupta Iron Store is related to Exhibit-1 which was inadvertently written as Exhibit

ASHOK SINGH ,IMLI PHATAK vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

46A. It\ncannot be verified on the basis of admissible documents that the cash was\nactually withdrawn by the appellant from the partnership firm and that it is the\nsame cash which was withdrawn from the partnership firm which has been\ndeposited in the bank account. Even the submitted documents even though not\nadmitted merely present the prima-facie view

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

capital gain on Rs. 31,565/- earned on sale of mutual funds. The appellant has further claimed deduction under chapter VI-A of the Act to the extent of Rs. 2,40,698/- thereby declaring net taxable income at Rs. 15,53,040/-. The appellant was specifically required to furnish detailed bank account statement along with explanation regarding the source

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to section 2(15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to section 10(23C) and third oroviso to section

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

gains must, therefore, be incidental. The requirement in section 11(4A) of maintaining separate books of account is also in line with the necessity of demonstrating that the quantitative limit prescribed in the proviso to section 2(15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to section 10(23C) and third oroviso to section

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Section 68 Case pertains to Asst. Year 1966-67 Decision in favour of: Assessee Cash credits—Addition under s. 68—ITO can make addition under s. 68 as income from undisclosed sources, simultaneously with addition to trading results— However, assessee can claim the addition under s. 68 as covered by intangible additions to trading results—In the present case

PARAS KUHAD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT - 7, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 145. However, the appellant did not file sales register depicting that amount invoiced and amount actually received and offered to tax. The appellant filed copies of bank statement but from bank statement the invoices raised by the appellant cannot be correlated and it cannot be established that the alleged receipts are offered to tax. 5.7 In view

SATYA NARAIN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5, JAIPUR

Bench: The Hearing Of The Appeal.

capital gains and interest income. He filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.35,36,582/- (paper book page no. 1 to 7. The ld. AO finalized the assessment by making an addition of Rs.4,86,143/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts. During assessment proceedings the learned Assessing Officer asked query regarding source