SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

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

capital\ngain and therefore, initiated inquiry by issuing summons u/s 131 and the\nassessee while preparing the details for onward submissions, realised that he\ncommitted an inadvertent mistake (while preparing the reply) and on the review\nof the return initially filed therefore, offered to pay the differential amount of the\ncapital gain which was offered vide letter dated 13.06.2014. Pursuant

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

capital\ngain and therefore, initiated inquiry by issuing summons u/s 131 and the\nassessee while preparing the details for onward submissions, realised that he\ncommitted an inadvertent mistake (while preparing the reply) and on the review\nof the return initially filed therefore, offered to pay the differential amount of the\ncapital gain which was offered vide letter dated 13.06.2014. Pursuant

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

capital\ngain and therefore, initiated inquiry by issuing summons u/s 131 and the\nassessee while preparing the details for onward submissions, realised that he\ncommitted an inadvertent mistake (while preparing the reply) and on the review\nof the return initially filed therefore, offered to pay the differential amount of the\ncapital gain which was offered vide letter dated 13.06.2014. Pursuant

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

capital\ngain and therefore, initiated inquiry by issuing summons u/s 131 and the\nassessee while preparing the details for onward submissions, realised that he\ncommitted an inadvertent mistake (while preparing the reply) and on the review\nof the return initially filed therefore, offered to pay the differential amount of the\ncapital gain which was offered vide letter dated 13.06.2014. Pursuant

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

capital\ngain and therefore, initiated inquiry by issuing summons u/s 131 and the\nassessee while preparing the details for onward submissions, realised that he\ncommitted an inadvertent mistake (while preparing the reply) and on the review\nof the return initially filed therefore, offered to pay the differential amount of the\ncapital gain which was offered vide letter dated 13.06.2014. Pursuant

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

capital gain, he cannot simply dispute fact that assessee did not file\n30\nITA No. 157/JPR/2024\nSuva lal Paharia vs. ITO\nreturn-Entire reasoning recorded by AO for initiation of reassessment proceeding and\nissuance of notice under section 148 was on wrong and incorrect facts that assessee has\nnever filed return of income, and in fact, it was filed-Initiation

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

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

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

RAM NIWAS VERMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

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

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

capital gain is computate at Rs.7,96,530/- as per section 50C of the Act….. 6. Disallowed deduction under Chapter VI of the Act During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80C

MAYA RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY, JAIPUR

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

80C (e.g., LIC premium, PPF, etc.), Section 80D (medical\ninsurance), and others under Chapter VI-A\ne) Interest on housing loan under Section 24(b)\nOpting for the New Regime:\na) For Salaried Individuals: The choice to opt for the new tax regime must be made\nat the time of filing the income tax return. They can choose to switch

KALYAN SAHAI GURJAR,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 195/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 Kalyan Sahai Gurjar S/o Surja Ram Gurjar Bhojera, Virat Nagar, Jaipur cuke Vs. CIT(A) Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ALMPG 1989 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Prajapat (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@

capital gain due to personal use for my family. Hence Rs. 4,50,000/- is not income chargeable to tax. Assessing Officer is not justified by addition of income of Rs. 4,50,000/-. 2. I received Gross Salary in the previous year 2010-11 of Rs. 2,46,110/-. My taxable income from salary

JAGDISH SONI,JAIPUR vs. ITO , JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Capital gain : Rs.48304/- Other Sources : Rs.1498403/- In the income from other sources, Interest on Saving Bank of Rs.15210/- has been included. In addition to above assessee has made investments/expenses qualifying for deduction u/s 80C amounting to Rs.150000/-. 2. Standard Deduction of Rs.50000/- has not been given : That while making intimation, assessing officer has not given standard deduction of Rs.50000/- which

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or Sh. Magendra Singh Rathore profession" has to be allowed as a deduction in computing the Income-tax under section 28 of the Act. 20. In Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT AIR 1979 SC 1291, this Court held that the expression "for the purpose of business" occurring under the provision is wider