DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

condone the delay of 92 days in filing the cross objection. 3.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 and 2 of the Revenue, brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Doctor by profession. He had filed his return of income on 28/9/2013 declaring total income of Rs 18,21,680/- along with audited Balance Sheet and Profit

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

long term capital gain as unexplained\ncredit, after placing reliance on the certain information and statements of\nthird parties, without allowing the cross-examination of the same to the\nassessee, is unlawful, and the addition so made deserves to be deleted.\n\n5. That the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in upholding assumption of the ld. AO\nthat payment

PARASMAL BHANDARI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: Making The Impugned Addition & Not Providing Any Opportunity Of Cross Examination Which Is In Gross Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice.

delay is condoned. 3.1 At the very outset of the hearing, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that present case of the assessee is covered by M/s. Channel Nine Entertainment Ltd. whose shares have been sold by the assessee and earned long term capital gain

KARUNA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 2(1), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

long term capital gain of Rs. 66, 94,676/- on account of subscribing the IPO of M/s. HPC Bio Sciences Ltd. and consequently, sale of the same. Of late, Searches have been conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Department at various places throughout the country. During the searches & as per the information made public by the SEBI

OMPRAKASH,DHOLPUR vs. ITO WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes as indicated hereinabove\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n17/01/2025

Long Term Capital Gain for the year under consideration. Therefore, as per\nthe case law mentioned above, the assessee is denied to claim any LTCG due to\nfailure of filing/submission of ITR for the year under consideration.\n4. 6. The assessee failed to furnish the copy of return of income during the year\nunder consideration as well as failed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RENU AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

long term capital gain which is exempt from tax or short term capital loss for set off with other nature of income so as to reduce the tax liability.\nThe stock is held for 12 months in which time price is artificially raised to a significant level and the said stock is sold with the assistance of the broker which

HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

condonation of delay is allowed. 4. Apropos Ground No 1 and 2 of the assessees, brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income (e-return) on 23-07-2016 declaring total income at Rs.22,96,01,790/- for the year under consideration. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny 4 HINDUSTAN SALES

PREM JAIN,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

delay of 34 days in filing the present appeal. As per the affidavit submitted by the assessee, though he received the impugned order dated 18.03.2020 passed by the ld CIT(A) on 21.03.2020, however, due to Covid -19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown imposed by the Government, it was impossible for him to file the appeal within the prescribed limitation

PREM DEVI BAID,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR, NCRB, STATUE CIRCLE, C-SCHEME

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

Long term capital gain of Rs. 61,49,716/- as bogus and income from other sources and adding the same in the total income of assessee is most arbitrary, unjust, untenable and bad in fact and in law and in the alternative excessive w.r.t. facts and circumstance of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that

MANU CHAUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 768/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2009-10 Shri Manu Chaudhary 7-CHA-11, Jawahar Nagar Jaipur - 302 017 बनाम ITO Vs. Ward 6(1) Jaipur } प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ADIPC 0353 R अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Dheeraj Borad, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

condoned the delay in filing the appeal and should have maintained the direction given by he himself to the AO in Para 6.4 of the same impugned order inter alia saying to allow the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition to the asseusee and re-work out the long term capital gain

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)

Long Term Capital Gain earned on sale of plot number 40, Shivpuri, Jhotwara, Jaipur situated at and taxed in his hands accordingly.” 6 Vishnu Pareek vs. CIT(A) On further appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide order dated 17.05.2019 held as under: “I have carefully considered the reason for condonation delay

PINKCITY JEWELHOUSE PVT LTD. 76, DHULESHWAR GARDEN, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for necessary adjudication. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed his return of income on 30.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.42,13,860. The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. The assessment was then completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated

PRAKASH PANDHARINATH BAKRE,INDORE vs. PR.CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for necessary adjudication. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed his return of income on 30.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.42,13,860. The case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny. The assessment was then completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

Long Term Capital Gain by not allowing the registry charges of Rs. 4,55,540/-(while allowing the deduction claimed u/s. 54B of the Act for purchase of agriculture land of Rs. 70,00,000/-). The disallowance so made and confirmed by the Id. CIT (A), being contrary to the provisions of law and the established facts, kindly be deleted

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

delay is condoned. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A)has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal of the assessee relating to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the reason that assessee has not pursued the appeal despite being granted several 4 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

NANAG RAM MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

condone the delay of 391 days in filing the\nappeal by the assessee in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court\nin the case of Collector, land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Others, 167 ITR\n471 (SC) as the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause.\n3.1 During the course of hearing, the Id. AR of the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VAIBHAV BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

long-term capital gains exemption of Rs. 40,15,061.29 by treating the sale of listed equity shares as a bogus transaction; and b. Addition of Rs. 2,05,753 (being 5% of Rs. 40,15,061.29) towards alleged undisclosed expenditure under Section 69C on account of commission purportedly paid to obtain such capital gains. IV. Aggrieved by the assessment

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

long-term capital gains exemption of Rs. 40,15,061.29 by treating the sale of listed equity shares as a bogus transaction; and b. Addition of Rs. 2,05,753 (being 5% of Rs. 40,15,061.29) towards alleged undisclosed expenditure under Section 69C on account of commission purportedly paid to obtain such capital gains. IV. Aggrieved by the assessment