DCIT, C-6, JAIPUR vs. GOVERDHAN PRASAD SINGHAL, JAIPUR

Section 50 without considering the fact that WDV was on date of discontinue of business, the buildings of discontinued business as kept investment for period more than 3 years and since then no depreciation claimed on that building. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in directing

GOVERDHAN PRASHAD SINGHAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, JAIPUR

Section 50 without considering the fact that WDV was on date of discontinue of business, the buildings of discontinued business as kept investment for period more than 3 years and since then no depreciation claimed on that building. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in directing

SHRI RAJ KUMAR JOHARI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

50C of the I.T. Act 1961 of Rs.1,13,69,566/- overlooking & ignoring the vital fact that there was upward revision in DLC rates between oral agreement dated 18-12-2010 i.e. when 2 SHRI RAJ KUMAR JOHARI VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR earnest money was received through banking channel and date of sale deed

ITO, ALWAR vs. KUNDAN LAL BADSHAH, ALWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is disposed off with above directions

50C of the Act made by the AO on a/c of Short Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee.” 2 ITO, Ward-1(1) Vs. Kundan Lal Badshah, Alwar 2. The facts and the chronology of the events relevant for the issue under consideration are as under: (i) Assessee has purchased agriculture land at Khasra no.230 (0.62 hectare

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

50C of the Act. The reasons recorded nowhere\nmentioned this possibility. Reasons recorded, in fact, ignored the fact that the sale\nconsideration as per the sale deed was Rs.50 lakhs and that the assessee had by\nfiling the return offered his share of such proceeds by way of capital gain.\"\n1.2.2 In the case of Vijay Harish Chandra Patel

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 (Rs.73,59,058/- and Interest to partners Rs. 1,63,54,490/-) which means an overall business loss of Rs. (-)) 1,93,48,625/- These grounds of appeal are partly allowed. As regards Ground no. 4, related to interest from FDR being Rs. 92, 58,480/- recently the HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

MEGHA COLONIZERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeal of the appellant stands dismissed with no orders as to cost

depreciation of Rs.9,07,019/- and MAT Credit of Rs.4,96,031/- while upholding the addition made by the AO.’’ 2.1 As per the facts of the present case the assessee is engaged in real estate construction activities. Assessment in the present case was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, thereby making

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

depreciation: 10. Whether the provisions of section This is a case where income 150(1) are applicable. If the reply is in has escaped assessment. affirmative, the relevant facts may be stated against item No. 11 and it may be brought out that the provisions of sections 150(2) would not stand in the way of initiating proceeding

M/S ANGEL INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the

depreciation: 10. Whether the provisions of section This is a case where income 150(1) are applicable. If the reply is in has escaped assessment. affirmative, the relevant facts may be stated against item No. 11 and it may be brought out that the provisions of sections 150(2) would not stand in the way of initiating proceeding

AMROS ENGINEERING PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(4), JPR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) :" The above provisions interprets the aspect of the word "and" as "or", the existence of the word "also" is of a great significance, being of conjunctive nature

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