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

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

546/- to the book profit of the assessee computed under section 115JB for charging minimum alternate tax (MAT). 3. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) and contended that the gain on sale of agricultural land is an agricultural income and, therefore, the same is an allowable deduction as per provisions of section 115JB

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

Capital Gains i.e. LTCG of Rs.4,44,60,476 LTCG declared by the assessee was Rs.0 as against that assessed by the Assessing 4 Officer at Rs.4,44,60,476, including Rs.4,30,51,976 on account of index cost of acquisition and Rs. 14,08,500 by making a disallowance of the index cost of improvement which relates

NARESH KUMAR ARORA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain from purchase and sale of shares which is exempt under section 10(38) of the Act, the primary onus is on the assessee to substantiate his claim by producing the supporting 17 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR evidence. We find that the assessee is a regular investor in shares. We also find that

ADITYA BAHETI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

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

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and as per the norms of SEBI Rules. During the assessment Proceedings, the Ld. AO has questioned the exemption of Rs.23,89,107/-claimed by the Appellant based on surmises and suspicion, despite detailed submissions along with corroborative evidences as well as legal documents by the Appellant. Transaction of Purchase

MANOHAR LAL CHUGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO,WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no order as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

capital gain from purchase and sale of shares which is exempt under section 10(38) of the Act, the primary onus is on the assessee to substantiate his claim by producing the supporting evidence. We find that the assessee is a regular investor in shares. We also find that in the case in hand the assessee purchased 20,000 equity

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NIRMAK KUMAR KEDIA,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Section 153A of the Act, the A.O. made addition of Rs. 1,22,26,044/- on account of alleged unaccounted business income alleged to be earned on sales of plots in Kediaz Corridor computed on the basis of noting found on Page No. 13- 19 of AS-9 impounded u/s 133(6) from M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP, Shop

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Section 153A of the Act, the A.O. made addition of Rs. 1,22,26,044/- on account of alleged unaccounted business income alleged to be earned on sales of plots in Kediaz Corridor computed on the basis of noting found on Page No. 13- 19 of AS-9 impounded u/s 133(6) from M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP, Shop

SHRI NIRMAK KUMAR KEDIA,,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Section 153A of the Act, the A.O. made addition of Rs. 1,22,26,044/- on account of alleged unaccounted business income alleged to be earned on sales of plots in Kediaz Corridor computed on the basis of noting found on Page No. 13- 19 of AS-9 impounded u/s 133(6) from M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP, Shop

SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Section 153A of the Act, the A.O. made addition of Rs. 1,22,26,044/- on account of alleged unaccounted business income alleged to be earned on sales of plots in Kediaz Corridor computed on the basis of noting found on Page No. 13- 19 of AS-9 impounded u/s 133(6) from M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP, Shop

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NITIN KEDIA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Section 153A of the Act, the A.O. made addition of Rs. 1,22,26,044/- on account of alleged unaccounted business income alleged to be earned on sales of plots in Kediaz Corridor computed on the basis of noting found on Page No. 13- 19 of AS-9 impounded u/s 133(6) from M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP, Shop

SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Section 153A of the Act, the A.O. made addition of Rs. 1,22,26,044/- on account of alleged unaccounted business income alleged to be earned on sales of plots in Kediaz Corridor computed on the basis of noting found on Page No. 13- 19 of AS-9 impounded u/s 133(6) from M/s Kedia Real Estate LLP, Shop

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

546 u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which is\nmentioned as interest.\n5. Thus, in the instant case, the fact on record is that the\ncompensation received consists of interest received along with\nenhancement of compensation. The amount received is not\nliable to Section 34 which is only the interest received for delay\nin making the payment after

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

546) (SC) Whether an association of persons must be one in which two or more persons join in a common purpose or common action and as words occur in section which imposes a tax on income, association must be one object of which is to produce income, profits or gains – Held, yes • CIT Vs Marsons Beneficiary Trust

VISHNU PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), JAIPUR

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

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

Capital Gain earned on sale of plot number 40, Shivpuri, Jhotwara, Jaipur situated at and taxed in his hands accordingly.” 6 Vishnu Pareek vs. CIT(A) On further appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 17.05.2019 held as under: “I have carefully considered the reason for condonation delay. I find that the reason given

DHARMENDRA MEHTA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains from the sale of three properties and Second for verification of source of cash deposit. Once the ld. AO has examined both of these two issues and found the same in order and no addition is proposed, he has no jurisdiction to enquire on the other issues which were not the subject matter of the reasons recorded

SH. MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

546 (Bombay) Held: For a notice to be validly issued for reassessment under section 148, jurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice, same is to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer as is required by provisions of section 151A 7. Pooja Vaibhav Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 165 taxmann.com 725 (Bombay) Held : Where

SH. KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

546 (Bombay) Held: For a notice to be validly issued for reassessment under section 148, jurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice, same is to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer as is required by provisions of section 151A Pooja Vaibhav Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 165 taxmann.com 725 (Bombay) Held : Where re-assessment

RAVINDER SINGH THAKKAR,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

546\n(Bombay)\nHeld: For a notice to be validly issued for reassessment under section 148,\njurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue impugned notice,\nsame is to be issued by Faceless Assessing Officer as is required by provisions\nof section 151A.\nPoojaVaibhav Shah v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 165\ntaxmann.com 725 (Bombay)\nHeld: Where re-assessment