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

MANJU BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

46A of I.T. Rules, 1962. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 78,34,d422/- towards short term capital gain as determined by the AO comprising followings. (1) Sale of property 74,SMS Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur Rs. 71,28,702/- (2) Sale of property

SATBIR YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

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

gain arisen out of sale of the land. 6. That during the assessment proceedings the assessee could not file evidence in support of his claim about the land being covered under section 2(14) of the Act. The A.O has given a very reasoned order citing evidences that the land in question does not fulfill conditions too claim

BALWANT YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

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

gain arisen out of sale of the land. 6. That during the assessment proceedings the assessee could not file evidence in support of his claim about the land being covered under section 2(14) of the Act. The A.O has given a very reasoned order citing evidences that the land in question does not fulfill conditions too claim

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

SHYAM KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), JAIPUR

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

Section 50C of the Act and took the deemed full valuation consideration as enhanced value of property for stamp purpose by Additional Commissioner (Stamp). The order of the Additional Commissioner 4 Shri Shyam Kumar Jain vs. ITO (Stamp) dated 09.10.2013 was challenged before the Rajasthan Tax Board and vide order dated 07.03.2018. The Rajasthan Tax Board set aside the order

KAMAKSHI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

capital gains. It was obvious from the demand made before 28 M/s. Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur the Tribunal that the revenue desired to examine the genuineness of the firm and the transaction, on fresh facts, not the existing facts, for the existing facts did not even remotely created any doubt regarding the genuineness

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

SHRI MADAN LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

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

Capital Gain and Rs. 5,46,808/- made u/s 68. Not having decided/adjudicated, the same may be kindly restored to the file of the CIT (A) for a decision afresh on these issues, after hearing the assesse.” 10. In first appeal the CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO by observing as under:- “As regards No. 5, related

NITIN PAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assessee are allowed

section 54B was restricted to Rs. 4,79,333/- as shown in the original return of income. The income of the assessee was accordingly computed determining the long term capital gain of Rs. 20,39,357/- as against Rs. 3,68,526/- shown by the assessee in its original return of income. The AO simultaneously initiated the penalty proceeding

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

ACIT, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD., KOTA

46A. 2. Firstly, we will take up appeal for AY 2008-09. In respect of ground no. 1, briefly the facts of the case are that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 31.12.2010 by making certain additions/disallowances to the returned income filed by the assessee company. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 dt. 17.08.2012 was issued

SHRI SURESH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 456/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Cuke Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma The Ito Vs. 1-A-61, Shiv Shakti Colony Ward- 4(5) Shastri Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Avrps 4770 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena , Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 2/03/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 15-02-2019 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1.The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Validity Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2 Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs Ito , Ward- 4(5), Jaipur 2.The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Deciding The Appeal Without Admitting The Additional Evidence Filed Under Rule 46A.

capital gain from the said transaction then the information received by the AO based on these documents, to which the assessee is a party, constitutes the tangible material to form the belief that income assessable to tax has escaped assessment. As regards the objection of the ld.AR of the assessee that reassessment ought to have been made u/s 153C

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

46A. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the fact that issue of share capital as well as unsecured loans was considered by the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act which was accepted as genuine and no incriminating material was found while framing the assessment u/s 153A of the Act held that