JUHI BHANDARI, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Gains earned by the assessee was deposited under Capital\nGains Account scheme wherefrom the amount was paid to the builder [PB\n180-183]. The said document was shown to the Assessing Officer during the\ncourse of assessment proceedings. He was satisfied and hence, no adverse\nview was taken.\n8. That the Assessing Officer passed order disposing objections raised

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 68/69C.\n7. On the contrary, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the AO had taken the entire sales consideration without taking into account the purchase price of such shares thereby the order passed by the AO was merely based on presumptions without any evidence, and the addition made is not justified. The ld. AR, in support

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

section\n143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, [Here in after referred as \"Act\"] by\nthe ITO, Ward-3(3), Jaipur.\n2\nITA No. 183/JPR/2024\nSh. Balveer Singh vs.ITO\n2. The assessee has raised following grounds:-\n\"1. That the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in having sustained the re-\nassessment proceedings u/s. 147 /148 of the Income

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

gain tax as the date of acquisition. Further, referring to the clarification issued by the CBDT, vide its Circular No. 672, dated 16.12.1993, it was observed by the Hon’ble High Court, that the Board had clarified that if the terms of the schemes of allotment and construction of flats/houses by the co-operative societies or other institutions 9 Pradeep

VISHNU PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), JAIPUR

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

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

Section 147/143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 14.12.2016. 2 Vishnu Pareek vs. CIT(A) 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The ld. CIT(A) seriously erred in facts and law in dismissing the appeal on account of delay of 162 days in filing of appeal before him against

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. HEM CHAND JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

920/- comprising of exempt LTCG of Rs.1,06,77,049/- and short term capital gain of Rs.10,78,647/-. The short termcapital gain consists of gain on sale of shares of Gini Silk Mills Ltd. of Rs.3,28,51,440/-,gain on sale of other shares of Rs.4,04,95,909/- and loss on sale of other shares of Rs.7

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

920/-\n(Amount of\nRefund claimed\nRs.78,050/-)\n9. The table prepared (supra) clearly demonstrates the doubtful nature and\nabesnce of creditworthiness of the parties concerned. It's a typical model of\nentry operators where they either file return of income below taxable or\nalways claim the refund of T.D.S. deducted out of such transactions. Uptil, the\nbench is trying

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

920/-\n(Amount of\nRefund claimed\nRs.78,050/-)\n9. The table prepared (supra) clearly demonstrates the doubtful nature and\nabscence of creditworthiness of the parties concerned. It's a typical model of\nentry operators where they either file return of income below taxable or\nalways claim the refund of T.D.S. deducted out of such transactions. Uptil, the\nbench is trying

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU vs. BAGARIA TRADE IMPEX, CHURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is\nconfirmed

920/-\n(Amount of\nRefund claimed\nRs.78,050/-)\n\n9. The table prepared (supra) clearly demonstrates the doubtful nature and\nabscence of creditworthiness of the parties concerned. It's a typical model of\nentry operators where they either file return of income below taxable or\nalways claim the refund of T.D.S. deducted out of such transactions. Uptil, the\nbench

MAYA RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY, JAIPUR

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

capital gain was offered to tax. Alleging that the assessee filed the revised return of\nincome after issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, the Assessing Officer held\nthat the said revised return of income filed by the assessee claiming deduction under\nsection 54 of the Act being invalid is not acceptable and accordingly, completed the\nassessment

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

920,460.00\n7\noct-14\n9,995,451.00\n11,590,800.00\n21,586,251.00\n32,287,657.00\n32,287,657.00\n8\nNov-14\n12,902,745.00\n16,162,500.00\n29,065,245.00\n22,429,810.00\n22,429,810.00\n9\nDec-14\n17,445,040.00\n10,871,485.00\n28,316,525.00\n25,532,554.00\n25,532,554.00\n10\nJan

PRADEEP GARG, AJMER,AJMER vs. ITO 2(1) AJMER , AJMER

920/-\nRs.5,40,650/-\nOn the above addition penalty of Rs.5,52,009/- was computed. But in the\nquantum appeal of the assessee Id. CIT(A) deleted the addition mentioned\nat sr no iii and iv. Considering that aspect of the matter Id. AO revised\npenalty of Rs.1,71,452/-. Apropos to the addition sustained the relevant\nfinding from

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. KARNANI SOLVEX PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

capital received by M/s Koel Tradecom P Ltd, out which\nloan was scrutinized in detail viz the parties from whom share capital was\nreceived were examined by issuance of notice u/s 133(6).\n\n(xii) In view of these facts and circumstances, the identity, and\ncreditworthiness of the lender company/person and genuineness of\ntransaction is well established and resultantly

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains chargeable to income-tax have been\nunderassessed. The second is that he must have also reason to believe that such \"under-\nassessment”, has occurred by reason of either (i) omission or failure on the part of an assessee\nto make a return of his income under section 22, or (ii) omission or failure on the part of an\nassessee

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him.

section 69B of the Act. This section reads as under:- "Amount of investments, etc., not fully disclosed in books of account. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 69B. Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, and the Assessing Officer finds that