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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

long term capital gains. In the present case, reopening under section 147 has been done\nwithout linking information received from Investigation Wing of Department to actual facts in\nthe appellant's case.\n\n2. Legal position in this regard-\n\n2.1 In this regard, provisions of section 147 are reproduced hereunder for your ready reference-\n\n\"If the Assessing

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

long-term capital gain as claimed by the assessee. The assessee them self-submitted that for one year there was a claim for depreciation

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

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

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

long term capital gain and also wrongly held that income from capital gain could not be set off from business loss as assessee has filed the return after due date prescribed under the Income Tax Act. 5) That the Commissioner Appeals has grossly erred in holding and sustaining the finding of the Assessing Officer that the assessee has shown business

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)

long term capital gains—Held, there is not an iota of any cogent material mentioned by Assessing Officer which enabled him to have reached conclusion that this case was a fit case for conversion from limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny—If proposal of Assessing Officer and approval of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax are examined on anvil of paragraph

RAM KHILARI MEENA,DAUSA vs. ITO, DAUSA, DAUSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Long Term capital Gain on sale of land and building ignoring the vital fact that no addition had been made on the reason framed for reopening of the case of the appellant. The case of the appellant was reopened on the reasoning of cash deposits in the bank account during the relevant previous year and non filing

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 on account of unexplained credits 46 ITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025 DCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others u/s 68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. Since we have confirmed the action of the ld. CIT(A) in directing

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 on account of unexplained credits 46 ITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025 DCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others u/s 68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the revenue is dismissed. Since we have confirmed the action of the ld. CIT(A) in directing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

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

Long-Term Capital Gains on account of unexplained credits\n\n46\nITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025\nDCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others\n\nu/s 68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\n\nSince we have confirmed the action

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, JAIPUR

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

Long-Term Capital Gains on account of unexplained credits\n46\nITA No. 301 and others /JP/2025 & CO No. 2 and others-JP-2025\nDCIT vs. Vaibhav Banka and others\nu/s 68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S HANUMAN TUBE WELL CO., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

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

depreciation, interest to partners & remuneration was negative (-) 1,09,19,607/-. This loss was despite crediting a sum to the P&L a/c for sale receipts of land Rs. 2,48,36,735/- on account of excluding which as long term capital gains

PINK CITY ARTS AND CRAFTS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

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

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

term capital gain by grossly ignoring the fact that assessee could not commence business activities on such building/shed. Appellant prays that such building/ shed could not be put to use for the purposes of business and accordingly was not eligible for depreciation, thus profit on sale of such building deserves to be assessed as Long

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

depreciation, interest on car loan, etc., however,\nas per the provision of section 44AD (6)(ii) of the act, income\nderived in the nature of commission or brokerage is not liable to be\noffered under section 44AD. Accordingly, assessee was asked to\nexplain why the brokerage income should not be considered as\nincome from other sources, vide order sheet entry

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

long-term capital gains exemption of Rs.40,15,061.29 by\ntreating the sale of listed equity shares as a bogus transaction; and\n\nb. Addition of Rs.2,05,753 (being 5% of Rs.40,15,061.29) towards alleged\nundisclosed expenditure under Section 69C on account of commission\npurportedly paid to obtain such capital gains.\n\nIV.\nAggrieved by the assessment order

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

terms of section 139(4A), within the time allowed under that section. Firstly, this requirement was not there before this amendment; and secondly, this insertion of additional clause clearly shows that such condition was not there in existing clause (b) of section 12A. Had such condition being there in clause (b) itself, then there was no need to insert

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

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

Long-Term Capital Gains on account of unexplained credits\nu/s 68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

Long-Term Capital Gains on account of unexplained credits\nu/s 68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, SIKAR

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

Long-Term Capital Gains on account of unexplained credits\nu/s 68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition

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

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

Long-Term Capital Gains on account of unexplained credits\nu/s 68 of the Act based on these observations ground no. 1 raised by the\nrevenue is dismissed.\nSince we have confirmed the action of the Id. CIT(A) in directing the\ndeletion of addition vide ground no. 1 the ground no. 2 being consequential\nto ground no. 1 the addition