DINESSH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD4(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains' but no addition was made in this regard, as no gains accrued to the appellant.\nHowever, learned AO proceeded to make addition on \"investment amount' under section 69A

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

69A, initiating tax proceedings. 8.2. Judgement and Tribunals findings The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Jaipur held that the cash received from the sale of rural agricultural land, which is not considered a capital assetunder Section 2(14), is exempt from capital gains

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)

69A, 69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

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

69A of the Act being the income from other sources. Therefore, subjected income has essentially to be classified u/s 14 of the Act as income from other sources and that is possible only when the income is not capable of being classified under any other head being income from salary, house property, capital gain, business or profession. 2.2 A combined

MUJMMEEL ,KOTA vs. ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent.; and (ii) the amount of income-tax with which

RAMDAS SINGH TOMAR,RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ramdas Singh Tomar M/s Om Sai Construction, Harikand Ka Pura Faraspura, Dholpur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AMZPT4728R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rahul Pandya, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT सुनवा

69A, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Surrendered income) - Assessment year 1989-90 - Whether where assessee had already discharged his tax liability in earlier year in respect 16 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO of surrendered/recovered income and proceedings initiated under section 263 had admittedly been dropped, assessee could not be taxedonceagain for same income

SHRI MADAN LAL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , BHARATPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed statistically and

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

69A, into the total income of the assessee.” 4.1 The ld. AO has also added a sum of Rs. 7,20,00,000/- as the short term capital gain based on the set of information received. The relevant finding of the ld AO on this issue is reproduced as under: “Short Term Capital Gain Since the assessee had entered into

ITO, WARD-1, BHARATPUR vs. SHRI MADAN LAL SHARMA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed statistically and

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

69A, into the total income of the assessee.” 4.1 The ld. AO has also added a sum of Rs. 7,20,00,000/- as the short term capital gain based on the set of information received. The relevant finding of the ld AO on this issue is reproduced as under: “Short Term Capital Gain Since the assessee had entered into

TARA SONI,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders\nas to cost

Capital Gains\nof Rs. 5,42,187 and making addition under Section 69A,to the\nincome of the assessee. The action

BALVEER SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(3) JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

Capital gain arise on the sale of the property has not been\nshown by the assessee. Thus, I have reason that income of Rs. 11,04,606/- for\nthe year under consideration has escaped assessment within the meaning of\nsection 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly a notice u/s 148 was issued on\n29/03/201,9 which was duly served

SILVER WINGS LIFE SPACES,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

section 69 come into application. Similar issue has been decided by the co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Chandigarh Benches, Chandigarh in the case of Montu Shallu Knitwers vs. DCIT, in ITA No. 21/Chd/2023, on December 1, 2023. Therein, it has been held as under:- “18. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

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

capital gains etc. II. Search and seizure operation, under section 132(1), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) was carried out on 21.07.2016at the business and residential premises of the assessee.(AO Order Page 1) III. For the relevant previous year, assessee furnished his return of income on 31.10.2017, declaring total income

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

capital gains etc. II. Search and seizure operation, under section 132(1), of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“ITA”) was carried out on 21.07.2016at the business and residential premises of the assessee.(AO Order Page 1) III. For the relevant previous year, assessee furnished his return of income on 31.10.2017, declaring total income

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

69A, 69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed 22 Kath Brothers vs. ACIT income is not income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from other sources' because the provisions of sections

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

Bench: Him.

capital gain (Rs. 4,77,46,835/-) of exemption u/s 10(38) of IT Act do not suffer from infirmities and cannot be held as bogus ignoring the fact that the impugned transaction was manipulated/deceptive device to create profit/loss? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

69A and therefore the Provisions of Section 115BBE are clearly applicable. Based on whatever material is available on file, I do not find any infirmity in the application of Section 115BBE(1) for charging of tax on additions made by the AO. This Ground of Appeal is rejected. M/s. Macro Township Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 12. The Ground of Appeal

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR , LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

69A and therefore the Provisions of Section 115BBE are clearly applicable. Based on whatever material is available on file, I do not find any infirmity in the application of Section 115BBE(1) for charging of tax on additions made by the AO. This Ground of Appeal is rejected. M/s. Macro Township Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 12. The Ground of Appeal

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC-2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

69A and therefore the Provisions of Section 115BBE are clearly applicable. Based on whatever material is available on file, I do not find any infirmity in the application of Section 115BBE(1) for charging of tax on additions made by the AO. This Ground of Appeal is rejected. M/s. Macro Township Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 12. The Ground of Appeal

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

69A, 69B and 69C being treated separately, because such deemed income is not income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor is it income from 'other sources' because the provisions of sections