SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

DAULAT SINGH HALDEA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 3(3), JAIPUR

The appeal is partly allowed as regards

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Capital Gain as discussed above Rs. 1,55,00,000/- Gross total income Rs. 1,63,00,964/- Less: deduction u/s 80C Rs. 27,500/- Total taxable income Rs. 1,62,73,464/- Rounded off Rs. 1,62,73,460/- Assessed u/s 143/147 at total income of Rs. 1,62,73,460/-. Issue demand notice. Charge interest as per ITNS

RAJESH GUPTA,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(2), KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

gains of investment in shares. Therefore, the assessee's activity of share transactions are determined as trading of shares and applying the provisions of section 44AD(1) of the Act for the returned turnover of Rs. 28,35,802 and estimates a deemed income at Rs. 2,26,864 @ 8% of such returned turnover. Thus, the assessee has not disclosed

TEJ PAL SINGH,REENGUS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NEEM KA THANA, NEEM KA THANA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Me That The Capital Gain Earned On This Land Acquired By Nhai Was Exempt In Terms Of Provision Section 10 Sub-Section (37) Of The Act. He Drew My Attention To The Relevant Provision Of Section 10(37) Of The Act As Under:-

capital gains, is restored back to the file of the AO to be re-determined in the light of the directions as above. Hence, ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 6 Tejpal Singh 15. Ground of Appeal No.2 reads as under:- 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

REGHUVEER SINGH TANWAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

capital gain at Rs. 1,73,43,456/- and also made addition of Rs. 4,78,000/- for making investment in cash and disallowed a sum of Rs. 17,875/- claimed that deduction under section 80C

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. VINOD KUMAR JHARCHUR HUF, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground raised by the assessee in the application filed under rule 27

80C, 80D and 80ITA of Rs. 1,02,520/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny. After considering the fact of the case and details filed by the assessee, the returned income as declared by the assessee accepted in an order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 28.06.2016. Later on vide order dated 03.07.2018, the Assessing Officer rectified

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from form 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the appellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any documentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter VI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from form 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the appellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any documentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter VI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

80C of Rs. 1,00,000/- (based on EPF deductions) as evident from form 16 (PB 10-11) therefore, the inference and allegations of the AO that the appellant did not declare complete statement of facts and did not submit any documentary evidence to his DDO towards claiming of deductions under Chapter VI A, is rather misleading. Interestingly

SHRI PREETAM,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical

80C of Rs. 1 lakhs. Thereby, the Assessing Officer computed taxable income at Rs. 4,00,64,291/- ,against the income declared at Rs. 1,71,943/-. Aggrieved by this order the Shri Preetam L/H of Shri Dayaram, Alwar. & Shri Laxmi Narayan, Alwar. assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal

SHRI RAM BABU VIJAY ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

80C are not a matter of discretion of the AO if the investment or expenditure is incurred falling under the category provided under the said provision. The issue in this appeal is only substantiating the expenditure itself and not the allowability of the claim. Once the expenditure is not substantiated by the assessee by producing any evidence then such claim

SHRI RAM BABU VIJAY ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

80C are not a matter of discretion of the AO if the investment or expenditure is incurred falling under the category provided under the said provision. The issue in this appeal is only substantiating the expenditure itself and not the allowability of the claim. Once the expenditure is not substantiated by the assessee by producing any evidence then such claim

MUKESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

capital gain for which the AO initiated the penalty u/s 271(1)© of the Act separately. 2.3 Further, the AO noted that during the year under consideration, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.4,07,000/- with Punjab National Bank, Johari Bazar, Jaipur for which the assessee was asked to explain the sources of cash deposited vide show cause

RAMA SHANKER PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 7(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 80C. On receipt of\ninformation from ITO (Hq.) vide his letter no. 657 dated 02.07.2015 (PB Pages 3-\n4), the AO recorded reason on 27.03.2017 mentioning that \"As per information,\nthe assessee has sold the plot no.72, Gayatri Nagar at Rs.20,00,000/- on\n04.11.2009 through the sale deed which was executed by the Sub-Registrar VIII,\nJaipur

SHRI SHANKAR SINGH SHERAWAT,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain and business income and consequently made addition. The penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Assessing Officer against the additions made on account of gain arising from the land in question and further disallowance of deduction U/s 80C of the Act of Rs. 20,000/-. At the outset, we note that an identical

BHAGWAN SAHAY,SANGANER, JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

29. This appeal ITA No

section 50C of the Act, share of the assessee in the sale consideration came to Rs. 1,03,30,000/-, but the assessee was found to have not filed any return of income. 8. So, the Assessing Officer conducted assessment proceedings and calculated the share of Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee, as regards the above said land

BHAGWAN SAHAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

29. This appeal ITA No

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

section 50C of the Act, share of the assessee in the sale consideration came to Rs. 1,03,30,000/-, but the assessee was found to have not filed any return of income. 8. So, the Assessing Officer conducted assessment proceedings and calculated the share of Long Term Capital Gain of the assessee, as regards the above said land

SHRI SURESH CHAND MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

capital gain and income from other sources. A search was conducted in case of Okay Plus JKD Group at the residential and business premises of the assessee group on 4th September, 2013. The assessee disclosed in the statement under section 132(4) an undisclosed income of Rs. 1,03,60,000/-. The assessee filed his return of income