DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S HANUMAN TUBE WELL CO., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

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

section 145(3), rejected the books of accounts. In view of the discussion made by the A.O. on the explanation given by the appellant in the assessment proceedings, it is clear that although no specific defects were pointed out by the A.O. in the order, however, certain defects could not have been possibly specified ike non maintenance of site material

MUKESH KUMAR JAJORIYA,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WD 2(3), JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

548 of the Act, it may be noted that section 54B lays down the following conditions: 1. The transferred capital asset must be land 2. The assessee transferring land must be an individual or HUF 3. In the two years immediately preceding the date of transfer, the land was used by the assess being an individual All his parents were

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

LALA RAM BAGRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, 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)

Capital Gain of Rs. 39,12,888/- against his 1/4" share in the said land 5. The CIT-(A) has erred in approving the AO's order in which cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 was not taken correctly and credit for cost of improvement was not given. 6. The CIT-(A) has erred in approving the AO's order

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

548-555] alongwith relevant supporting\ndocuments.\n1.21. That the Id. PCIT vide its order dated 30.03.2024 passed u/s. 263 has\npartly accepted the submission of the assessee appellant to the extent of non-\napplicability of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) and disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) for\ndelay in deposit of ESI/PF, however, has held that the assessment order

RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

548/- in Future and Options (F&O) totaling to Rs. 40,22,115/- under the head income from business and profession. The report reveals total turnover of Rs. 1,59,27,862/- which is the total of Mark to Mark (MTM) value irrespective of minus or plus. Thus, ld. AO observed that the assessee is required to keep and maintain

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)

capital and earning fictitious profits and so called 'belief' formed by Assessing Officer towards escapement of chargeable income was without availability of relevant or tangible material and merely following opinion expressed by investigation wing, reassessment was bad in law and hence liable to be quashed. Thus from perusal of these judicial precedent cited, it could be concluded that the initiation

SMT. PRIYANKA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 214/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2009-10 Smt. Priyanka Agarwal, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. D/O- Late Sh. Tulsi Das Agarwal, Ward-1(5), 2000, Khejaro Ka Rasta, Third Jaipur Crossing Shop, Topkhana, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aikpa 7142 B Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jaipur Dated 26/06/2019 For The A.Y. 2009-10. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:

Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 5,17,894/- as against Nil (-1119) and made the addition of Rs. 5,17,894/- on account of LTCG. Hence the addition so made or LTCG assessed by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence

SHRI SALASAR BALAJI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital of assessee along with the copy of Board resolution allowing the applicant company\nin this regard and ITR are enclosed. It is further submitted that the transaction was carried out through payee's\naccount cheque and the shares allotted have duly been intimated to the ROC as per the law prevailing. Further there\nare no transactions entered into

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

COTTAGE HANDICRAFT TEXTILE EMPORIUM,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Hearing Of The Appeal.

capital, hiring of place (show room), employees, furniture and other infrastructure etc. The Id. AO has further noted that the submission of the assessee that they have 100% billing and maintain day to day stock is not acceptable. During the course of assessment proceedings open market enquiry was conducted, and it is found that the assessee is selling articles without

JYPORE MANUFACTURING JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

548\n58218.210\ngms\n16,59,21,898\n18 Kt. Gold\njewellery\n15990.600 gms\n7,11,25,495\n13957.684\ngms\n3,26,60,745\nIn the 18 Kt. Gold jewellery, there is extensive use of diamonds which forms part\nof gross weight and valuation of gross jewellery.\n22 Kt. Gold Jewellery: Issue of jewellery released by Income Tax Department-\nThe appellant