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

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

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

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

2. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shri Ram Singh (Raj-HC)2008, 306 ITR 343 3. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Jet airways (I.) Ltd. 331 ITR 236 (Bom) 2.6 On the other hand ld DR appearing on behalf of the revenue relied

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