SMT. NIRMALA MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

gain and other sources. A search was carried out u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on 07-01-2016 in case of Dilip Manihar group in which assessee was also covered. The assessee filed his return of income u/s 139 of the Act on 30-03-2016 declaring total income

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

2,65,99,000 \nbeing the alleged cash transaction between M/s. Millenium Build Home P. \nLtd and M/s Nevralji Estate P. Ltd.\n11. As is evident from the facts of the case narrated herein above that \ndisputes arise because the revenue collected some documents in that \nsearch and those documents were considering being the nature of \nincriminating and that

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

capital gain. The order of the CIT (A), affirmed by the ITAT, deleting the addition, was not interfered with." 59. In Kabul Chawla (supra), the Court referred to the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Jai Steel (India) v. Asstt. CIT [2013] 36 taxmann.com 523/219 Taxman 223. The said part of the decision in Kabul Chawla (supra) in paras

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

section 132 of the Income Tax act together. The documents related to dissolution of JV of both of them were found from the premises of both the persons. Both of them accepted that the transaction in question was not loan but an accommodation entry against the settlement of dispute. In fact, some of the amounts as per seized paper

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

56]25]000@& vk jgh gS tc fd LVWkd jftLVj ds vuqlkj 1]25]02]000@& vk jgh gSA nksuksa dk vUrj 68]77]000@& vk jgk gSA bl ckjs esa vkidk D;k dguk gS \ mÙkj 16 bldk tokc Hkh lsBth nsaxsA iz0 17 losZ ds nkSjku rS;kj eky yxHkx 92 Vu gS ftldh dher

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

56]25]000@& vk jgh gS tc fd LVWkd jftLVj ds vuqlkj 1]25]02]000@& vk jgh gSA nksuksa dk vUrj 68]77]000@& vk jgk gSA bl ckjs esa vkidk D;k dguk gS \ mÙkj 16 bldk tokc Hkh lsBth nsaxsA iz0 17 losZ ds nkSjku rS;kj eky yxHkx 92 Vu gS ftldh dher

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

56]25]000@& vk jgh gS tc fd LVWkd jftLVj ds vuqlkj 1]25]02]000@& vk jgh gSA nksuksa dk vUrj 68]77]000@& vk jgk gSA bl ckjs esa vkidk D;k dguk gS \ mÙkj 16 bldk tokc Hkh lsBth nsaxsA iz0 17 losZ ds nkSjku rS;kj eky yxHkx 92 Vu gS ftldh dher

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Gains of business or profession.” Then, a look at section 36(1)(iii) does show, that the deduction pari material in terms of erstwhile section 19 is admissible under this clause. For the present purpose sections 20 and 21, as they earlier existed are not relevant for the present controversy. 1. It is in this background, that the ld. Tribunal

M/S S B B J,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Gains of business or profession.” Then, a look at section 36(1)(iii) does show, that the deduction pari material in terms of erstwhile section 19 is admissible under this clause. For the present purpose sections 20 and 21, as they earlier existed are not relevant for the present controversy. 1. It is in this background, that the ld. Tribunal

A DAGA ROYAL ARTS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital asset, being investments, are not covered by the provisions of section 40A(3) of Act. Regarding AO’s observation that the auditors have mentioned that the assessee is engaged in the real estate business, it was submitted that the auditors have rightly mentioned their real estate business and nothing adverse could have been inferred by the AO because